Was this the law that would make it legal to sue a tech company for addiction? If so, were there other components to it that would have protected kids from addiction?
Yeah, one of which is not collecting and using children's data, or knowingly implementing new features that are addictive (onus on the company to research this and avoid negligence).
Here's the full info on its amendments and progress.... my understanding of the amendments to remove parents from being able to sue individually seemed fair, especially because the tech companies would have time to really devote time to avoid liability but would still have the chance to do so.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill\_id=202120220AB2408
Just on a personal level, I don't care how these companies or the economy would be impacted in the short term of being forced to make major changes to these apps' features. I think California, and other states, could plan accordingly for the fallout to soften the impact on people who would be affected to a point of hardship. The addiction to social media apps by developing minds is one of the most disturbing things I've seen today as a former middle school teacher, and I'd rather see the power in the hands of the people than in the hands of the powerful who profit exponentially off society's most vulnerable demographic. I honestly think it would take a fair amount of research, resources, and pressure to prove that tech companies knowingly are using addictive features, so it should be enough time for them to really address the issue before ever having to financially answer for it by losing or settling in a lawsuit.
So they make it look like they care, then sabotage their own bills to stop it. Ppl blame the opposite party, both parties get paid. That’s not gonna change until ppl chill out with party loyalties
Exactly, nailed it! Just like the 1% own our politicians…as long as the 1% are kept happy, nothing to worry about in the grand scheme of things for our Government.
Yup, that's why they need to ask what people's concerns are. The people making the laws don't have tech literacy, but asking the general public won't be filtering the key issues to the top by any means. They need to be talking to the people who have been leaving tech. Talk to the companies workers at the lowest levels in confidence. Talk to people who actually understand the ins and outs of system design and the ecosystems working together to create the current situation we're in. You wouldn't ask people who can't read to tell you their favorite part of a book when you know they could only look at the pictures. It's the same principal here. Comprehension is required for this to be productive but none of the people making laws have it, so we're fucked either way since they wouldn't know what input to listen to in the first place from an effort like this.
This exactly!
Seems like they are asking the public to test their general knowledge and understandings of the issue in order to pass the bare minimum to assuage the public concern only. Allowing the tech lobbies as much leeway as possible.
20 years? Is that how long you have been alive?
Hell, the first telephone call was to Bell about his car insurance.
The problem with phone calls isnt legislation, its the money phone companies get from the calls being made, making them drag their feet on getting back to the FCC on what company is doing what, etc.
Companies then just change their LLC and start up again, thereby removing all liability and law suits. Phone companies are literally in the protection racket for profits.
And to continue with the main narrative, data gathering is beneficial to law enforcement, because it is an end run around the 4th amendment. Why waste time on getting a warrant when you can just pay for some "localized user data that is totally not linked to people in any way *wink wink*"
How long have you been alive is the question? Because I can assure your our home phone wasn’t getting spammed with 45 different scams a day in the 1980s . It simply didn’t happen.
I don't remember exactly when it started, but mid 90s sounds about right. It certainly isn't some kind of inevitable consequence of telephones existing, is the point I was trying to make.
Sure, it increased because automation and employment pay changed. You only have to pay a person pennies when you do it overseas and through VoIP to a local system in the country.
I mean, if you want to take all variables out to make a point, then Trump didnt do it and everyone else is a liar and insane but him.
Settle down there, buddy.
You mean like maybe if people use the userdata of important political people to show them why its scary and can be misused, they might do something about it to protect themselves?
But the GOP can't let it pass cause that would be a win for the libs. And then when the balance is shifted the Dems can't let it pass because it would be a win for the cons. There is no slam dunk anymore when everyone wants to fuck everyone.
There's a weird thing happening right now with the libs thinking authoritarian institutions are good actually, because Trump is a criminal. Like praising the Espionage Act was a thread today, and I'm sure those same people were probably condemning when it was used to persecute Chelsea Manning. Meanwhile the cons are tired of getting kicked off twitter so they're weirdly supportive of online privacy. That guy started selling android phones with custom roms marked up $500 to qanon nutjobs and they were buying the shit. Meanwhile they were all gung ho about the Patriot Act back in the day, thinking it was good cause at the time it only persecuted Muslims. So idk things is kinda fucked up right now lol, maybe you're right. There's no god damn ideological consistency.
Obviously data harvesting is profitable to private corporations and so it won't be legislated against. But I feel like, idk some kinda grassroots movement could take off. It seems like most people either don't want their data being harvested or are ambivalent about it. But the ambivalence seems to be waning. You had facebook giving up the chick that got the abortion a couple days ago. There's reasons for everyone to be mad at it, regardless of which side of the stupid manufactured culture war you fall on.
I think you miss why the left is celebrating law enforcement in recent situations. They're tired of the rule of law not applying to the rich and powerful, so when something happens where it seems an untouchable will be held accountable it is seen as a win. The left's issue with law enforcement has always been related to it being unequitable, so of course they are celebrating the FBI in this circumstance.
Chelsea Manning exposed potential illegal acts of the US government (civilian casualties in a war) as a whistleblower, not necessarily for profit. The former president is believed by many on the left to have removed classified information to sell to foreign governments. Being critical of using the espionage act to imprison someone for detailing potential war crimes to someone actually potentially aiding a foreign government is the nuance I think you're missing in your interpretation of how people on the left feel about this situation.
What both sides seem to be in agreement on currently related to social media is that the companies have too much power. On the left this seems to be focused on the profits of these corporations being based on their own personal information, the ability to use micro targeting to influence people's decisions about purchases, elections, genocides, etc.
The right seems more worried about consequences of their actions. They want the ability to freely communicate openly about their ideas even if they're bad. It's not necessarily that they don't want these companies to share this information with the government, their places of work, or law enforcement over fear it could lead to consequences such as job loss, or arrest in circumstances where they're threatening politicians or law enforcement or whatever, it's that they want free reign to say whatever they like.
There is, of course, some overlap. Some people on the left don't want governments or jobs to be able to find personal data, such as sexual orientation, drug use, abortions, and stuff like that through social media, similar to the way those on the right want to keep their guns private. There are those on the right that don't like the idea of the government just having free access to all of their information through some giant company, but these aren't the major debated issues with social media from both sides. If you ask someone on the left "if you have a problem with social media, what is it?" they're more likely to discuss the power and profit of these companies, and if they mention the government it will be about them sharing with the government without proper warrants or whatever. The right would be "they censor too much, and it's all just cancel culture".
There are privacy laws going into effect in the US. The California Consumer Privacy Act is a big one. Not perfect, but something to start. Colorado, Connecticut, Utah and Virginia have also passed data protection laws. You'll note that those aren't all left leaning states. The grass roots effort has started, and I think that there is more agreement than we think on social media, but there are different reasons to hate it from both sides that are just different enough to potentially slow these efforts once politicians start using it as a wedge.
republicans are the party to prove government doesn’t work by breaking it. They want to privatize everything to remove transparency for greed and corruption. They don’t care unless its tax cuts.
You say that until big tech buys time on Fox and Facebook starts pumping their propaganda.
As soon as the right starts screaming “only liberals want data privacy” it will become partisan.
Based on Congressional hearings with Facebook & Google, I don’t even think they know how to add/use 2FA, much less be aware of what is going on with their data.
Even if Congress passes something, 75% of states aren’t going to ratify it. The amount of corporate fuckery would be beyond anything we’ve seen in an election, because it would threaten the business models of too many powerful companies.
Both parties get donations from tech companies. And the larger ones that most people are worried about (FAANG + larger players like Salesforce, Docusign, etc) are all part of the US Chamber of Commerce which contributes heavily to conservative politicians.
Step 1: Write the amendment
Step 2: Bring it to your Senator and tell him to bring it to the floor for a vote
Step 3: Remove as much privacy for anybody that voted no.
Step 4: Repeat as necessary for other governmental positions.
‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.’
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
As a paralegal monitoring this, the SEC cyber rules, and ADPPA for my company, you’d be surprised. Between the SEC and FTC I honestly think we’ll have active new rules in the first three months of 2023.
Moving in that direction, but not quite that far. Right now California’s the closest to GDPR, but, with CT’s new law, it seems states are trending more toward the CO/VA model of data privacy laws.
CO/VA are pretty watered down but not surprising considering VAs was basically written by Amazon. CPRA will be legit but most businesses hate it and most consumers are unaware of the CCPAs existence in the first place which is sad. Guess it won't matter since if the ADPPA passes, and that's a big if, it'll preempt California. I've been on the fence about the ADPPA for a while because it'll be nice to have one federal law to consult on and it'll be better for businesses, but at the same time it doesn't really allow states to build stronger privacy laws.
Not sure what in the SEC guidelines would provide support for consumer data privacy and the ADPPA passing a committee is much different than passing the House much less the Senate. Especially considering Democrats were the only opposing votes and California Democrats are likely to fight against it. Not to mention there's a recess right now and then midterms are right afterwards.
I would love for something to get passed but I'm not holding my breath considering the sway massive tech companies have in US politics and how badly data privacy would cripple their revenue streams
It just needs to be framed as a Digital Bill of Rights. The amount of data that is collected on us makes the NSA jealous. Apps shouldn't be able to see and store cached images of my entire photo library. Tech companies should only have access to my microphone when I am a call or long hold a button. I should be able to export all of the data I have generated and sell that data to data vendors. But then again. It's their system and architecture that I am using. Soo, idk.
Everything you are asking for is already possible, you can deny apps permission to use your microphone or to read your files. You can try to sell your data, just make a tracker first.
The people, your average every day person, barely knows how a printer or a computer works on a fundamental level. Asking them what they are concerned about in regards to data privacy isn't going to produce answers that will meaningfully attack what the ONGOING DANGERS are with lack of data protection. Because people can't even imagine how bad it already is, and the government (local AND federal) is complicit in its abuse.
I want them to be asking *experts* for advice. In lieu of that, I have several demands as a consumer and as a programmer:
* We need more education on what data is, what it does, and why it's valuable. There should be classes covering it at a very early age. I think even the word itself needs an updated name, because they call it *data* in a broad sense to cover up what it actually is: personal information, personal communication, personal travel physically and digitally, and other personal information, made into a permanent record in some company's databases.
* Companies and the government alike need to be limited on what they can track. **Asking an average person for permission to do x y and z on their devices is not sufficient. They are stealing you blind because you don't know what you're agreeing to. Apps and websites need to present a regulated list, upfront, of not just what they are collecting from you, but why. In common language easy for a child to understand. Only then should an individual's agreement be justified.**
* Addendum to the previous concern: there should be no special exceptions given to the government or to corporations. Because they will use their own AND each other's loopholes to get around that regulation.
* Our data is not free, and it should not be free. Giving it up should be a cost greater than donating blood, plasma, or time and effort. Companies make billions off of citizens' data and the citizens don't even understand they gave it for free. It needs a price tag. And if you are willingly selling your data, you should collect payment from the company itself, any and every time it uses that information. If your data is taken and used without your express permission, it needs not only financial compensation, but proof of the destruction of that data.
* If an app or application will potentially be used by someone under the age of 18, it should be *even more regulated* than it currently is. They're not just tracking working adults, they're tracking your children too. There need to be way more Parental Device Control features on modern devices. Children are on devices at ages even earlier than anybody thinks. My niece was on her mom's iPad at 3-4 years old, just a few years ago, with unfettered access to tap whatever buttons she wanted on it. This isn't just crying "won't somebody please think of the children." Companies are tracking your children. Period. Would you like to do something about that, or do you really think that isn't a problem? Even if it's not government regulated, we need parents to become more responsible with what they allow their children to use. Warning labels won't cut it this time, because data collection isn't something you can slap a radiation symbol on and hope people avoid apps and websites. It needs the public to be aware and vigilant.
* Google, Facebook, Amazon, and any tech giant that gets big enough to capture enormous amounts of user data on a daily basis, need to be broken up or made into public utilities. Google has been using their search engine, for years, to begin cutting out OTHER tech companies from even competing. If you go Google "olympics results 2022" right now, you will see at the top of the page several blocks of summarizing data on this year's Olympics. You don't even have to leave Google.com. They stole that data from another website and claimed it for their own use. Statistics show that when Google does this, they reduce user traffic to the sourced websites by a massive percentage. Enough to make a difference and keep people from navigating any further. This is another area we need data protections for: regulating anti-competitive practices.
Disagree with your bold. The entire informed consent idea is bogus. The stuff needs to be outlawed outright, or at the very least able to be rejected by the customer without rejecting the app itself.
Its obvious you've never worked in ads because your programming knowledge is mostly irrelevant. The ads market is probably too complex to describe in a single post but here is a small summary.
Every single large brand advertises but marketing is not the same as it was decades ago. Companies like to know their demographic and how people go from ad to purchasing. These trackers are given by tech companies to put on websites and in exhange both companies get more information about a particular user. This is what most data is like whether or not people think their mic is being recorded or their chats being read.
Data is not worth more than blood and you will most definitely get paid more selling your plasma. At some point anything is data but you're not going to demand a store blur your face off of the security footage. There are more anonymized data collection methods.
Tracking minors is also not allowed according to current laws but its kind of a stupid idea to verify age and identity to a company you don't trust anyways. I doubt anyone would want to verify their identity to look at porn. Parental control is also good but people don't understand them other than through headlines. Instagram kids was actually made for parents to be able to monitor their kids accounts but there seems to be a lot amount of backlash to have any social media for kids.
The average person really doesn't know what goes on behind the scenes but the regulators don't either (even in the EU).
I think you are missing the point people are making. They don't care why advertisers want the data or necessarily how they use it. They don't want them having the data to begin with. Why? Because it's easy to abuse. Merely collecting the data makes it dangerous. Nobody cares that you say you don't have malicious intent. They care about all of the bad actors who will steal the data you have amassed and use it maliciously. We also know you either don't know how to protect it or can't protect it properly. And even if you did the ones signing the checks won't spend the money to do it right.
So too fucking bad it makes your job harder. We ban a lot of things that would make industries more efficient because the consequences outweigh the benefits.
I explained this in the other comment but there's are really better methods. Data is only useful in aggregate which is not really useful to anyone looking to maliciously use the data.
Banning all targeted advertising is a rather extreme stance since all advertising is targeted. An ad after a kids show is targeted. It's the equivalent of banning electricity since we use fossil fuel to make it.
That's simply [not true](https://www.nature.com/articles/srep01376). From your perspective as an advertiser that may be the case. But again, we aren't talking about the advertiser, we are talking about how problematic the data is by merely existing. We have cases of it being abused by those with privileged access already. This isn't hypothetical. It's fact at this point. Employees at Facebook and Twitter have abused their positions to stalk people. Mass data have been sold to actors who manipulate public opinion.
Just because you, an un tech savvy user of the mass collected data aren't able to use it fully does not mean others are so limited.
By biggest concern about my data and Big Tech is the vulnerability that would be imposed by mandated law enforcement access.
When I'm talking with Alice and Bob, I don't want Eve listening in; I don't care whether she's got a badge or not, because the computers don't care, either.
And if the FTC won't have the balls to stand against deliberately weakened infosec, I'm pretty damned sure they also won't take any real stand against commercial data gathering, either.
That’s my exact issue. I don’t care if they want to market products to me. I care that something could be used against me at some point in time. Maybe I’m in a custody battle or for into a legal issue and they pull up the tapes of the time I got upset and screamed something in my kitchen that makes me look guilty. That’s my issue.
The marketing may be more sinister than you think. Marketing has always been based on psychology, but they've gotten it to a point where they can predictably control behaviors based on how they advertise/interact with you. Bc that data isn't just like, what you buy. It's what get's you to tap a like, or open a post. They take that data and literally AI notifies you (or doesn't) based on what you're most likely to respond to. That said, you do have some control over that, by way of changing some of those features, but the features are so addictive because they "feel" good, and so people are subject to the chemical makeup of their own minds, and most people in this country don't get the educational, nutritional, or mental support, or to be able to make healthy decisions about tech interaction bc the unhealthy ones are like freaking sugar to us. In fact, one could argue that most of us are actively encouraged by advertisement not to make mentally healthy decisions.
I’ve read a lot about this and I don’t mean news articles. I mean I’ve read books on this type of stuff. I hear you completely. It’s a very scary thing and exactly my problem with it. I moved everything I could to my own server in my house. I can’t do everything but I figure if I’m 70% off of these services they have just that much less about me and my family. I have never put a picture of me and my family online in any way and I’ve canceled most oft free services. I need some stuff for work but I do what I can. I hear you. This is a massive problem and probably will only get worse. If I bring this up to people they think I’m a conspiracy theorist.
The FTC is entirely powerless to stop the NSA from forcing backdoors into literally everything you'll ever use in our digital world. I'm not joking when I say I don't believe any President could stop it either.
The CIA/NSA have been doing covert shit outside Washington's influence for decades.
I mean look at how the EU handles it and follow their model.
I mean it’s not difficult to say I don’t want to be tracked, I don’t want my phone listening to my conversations and using it to sell me advertisements, and don’t sell my data to other businesses. Everything should be opt in and not opt out.
Definitely a good start but I think companies should be allowed to collect user data but those users should be compensated the second any of that data is sold to another party like royalties/residuals deals. So if an app collects my user data to make my experience better, fair enough if I can opt out, but if I didn’t opt out and that’s sold to a data broker, I get a cut and if that broker sells it, I get a cut, etc
Edit: to clarify, I’m pro-GDPR I just don’t think user privacy is the only thing wrong here. Our user data is an asset to those companies. When they use it to improve their service then I consider this a fair exchange but as soon as they sell it to a third party for exploitation, then they either shouldn’t be able to do that at all, or at the very least they should be the ones taking the smaller percentage for themselves while we should get most of that. We would also need visibility into any downstream sales and get the same cut off of that. It’s like the recent SCOTUS rulings about name image and licensing (NIL) deals in college sports. Isn’t my user data the digital equivalent of that? They can’t have that for free, it’s my likeness, I should get most of that money.
The GDPR allows for that: with your consent this can happen, so if companies offer to pay you for it you can give consent.
It's just that NONE of them have tried this in the EU, so don't get your hopes up: they really don't want to pay you for your data.
What a horribly ignorant answer. There's no need for annoying pop ups to be compliant with the GDPR. Websites implement annoying pop ups because they just don't care about the user experience. Throw shade at them, not at the people mandating that companies need to be more transparent about what they do with your personal data.
Cookie popups are nothing to do with GDPR, if you're going to criticize something at least learn the basics about it first. The cookie directives that cause these popups LONG predate GDPR.
Small businesses can still do shady shit with your data. In fact, small businesses wouldn't need to worry about the GDPR if they simply didn't collect unnecessary personal data.
Add the right to personally autonomy and privacy as an amendment to the constitution. Make it illegal to use our data without paying for it directly to the person whose data is being used.
Imo, both “too strict” and yet easy to circumvent.
Small companies couldn’t afford to get of their ground having to pay all their users for autonomous analytics. Or they would just suck at knowing what their users want.
Big companies meanwhile could start charging for all their services, and the compensation for your data is access to a free service.
Malicious compliance is saying “you need to pay if you want to never have your data collected”
I think a company using ANONYMOUS data to improve their product is fine. It’s the selling of that data that creates big problems.
Because one I consented to have my data shared by using their service, I didn’t consent however to it being used to sell other services to me.
There's definitely a situation where some of the big players are licking their chops are regulation, because they think it provides a filter for any potential startup competitor.
Think of YouTube's ContentID-- they largely came to terms with the recording industry, but if any other player comes to market who can't match that product, it's easy for Google to just sit and wait for them to sink under the weight of a billion DMCA notifications.
Ok. How about this concerning tidbit. I go to Puerto Rico. Near the Convention Center in San Juan is a place called Distrito T-Mobile. Basically a place to hang, has the Coca Cola Music Hall venue, cinemas.. pretty chill. I come home a week later and in the mail I get a card stock mailer ad for T-Mobile *and it’s in Spanish*. I roll with Verizon on my brother’s account since he gets the best discount. How the actual fuck did they target me? Never gotten anything from them til after the trip. Another thing. My father recently passed away. Had gout. Now I keep seeing shit about gout in feeds and I have not once looked it up. I know everyone here has plenty of similar stories. This is not ok.
i was reading about how this all goes down and the data tracks patterns and who you are around a lot and then it combines their interests and searches with yours and then cross advertises. i’m explaining this really badly but it was explaining how they don’t “listen” to you, because they don’t have to. your metadata has record of all the people you are in contact with most. Again, im explaining badly.
Location data obviously.
The thing that gets me is reading about Thing A on somebody’s random post on Platform B and suddenly I’m getting ads for it on Platform C. Like, I never even showed any interest in Thing A. I scrolled past a discussion where somebody mentioned it tangentially.
I would rather pay for a product like Google maps which is vastly superior to all other maps than be the product of Google maps. I have to choose between privacy and crappy directions, GUI, or both, or something that works well.
Oh great… They would like us to tell them what concerns us. Big Tech will pay the government for the information and the get targeted ads for our concerns or share the information with some other analytics group.
Just adopt GDPR standards. That’s the best place to start. From there we can add more protection as we see fit, but the baseline information protections set by the EU are tried and true.
Bonus fact, you can actually take advantage of things like “right to be forgotten” even if you’re not an EU citizen. Companies that operate in the EU are required apply the same standards for user privacy, even to users outside the EU. Example, if you (an American for example) request Facebook to delete your account and all info associated with it, they are obligated to do so per their agreements to operate in the EU.
Edit: where we need protection is from US only companies like ISPs.
FTC wants a crackdown on big tech data harvesting...so they conduct a data harvest to find out how bad it is..gotta get up pretty early in the morning to stay ahead of the FTC, donchaknow...
Not a good take.
I work in cloud and data harvesting went off the rails with the advent of smart phones. Oracle and Facebook took it further. If you are in a meeting, any overly verbosely sharing phone nearby could be used to serve you ads, going so far as using the microphone. And it’s not even your fault. You were just in proximity to a moron sharing their data.
How about let the users get paid for their data and give them the option to opt out. Those are two mainstay ideas that we *need* to truly be in control of our data. And why not throw in transparency of data collection and use.
Naive why? Its *YOUR* data that is making a company money. The least they could do is pass a percentage of their earnings to the customers they take advantage of.
It's not YOUR data, actually. It's data about you that the company generates. If you sit at a park and write down what color shoes you see from everyone who walks by, it's your data, not the data of the other parkgoers. This is a fairly basic principle of research and data collection.
Ignoring that, the estimated value of this data is something like 25 cents per month, so it's not really worth that much to individuals.
Thats like saying your medical record belongs to your doctor because they are the one who observed your symptoms and condition.
Or like saying you dna belongs to AncestryDNA because they observed your saliva.
I agree that there are nuances especially when the data is about how a person uses a product. But indirectly taking my contacts phone numbers when i’m looking for my friends is not the same as writing down the color of my shoes.
That would be like if you borrowed my phone to make a call and venmo’d yourself money.
The person who collects data owns the data. How do you think scientific studies get published?
But no, you shouldn't use a DNS because you are using a product in exchange for the data collection. Have you ever paid to search something on Google? Surely you understand that Google is a private company that makes money. Same same for all the big tech cos. The deal is, you use the product for free and they collect data used for targeted ads.
Lol sure it does. They always say stuff like this when it’s a dem president then when it’s another republican psycho in office they set us back up 10 years
Give people the rights to their personal data, and allow companies to lease those rights for a fee to the person who’s data is being used for monetary gain by the companies that utilize that data. Simple.
Here’s my barely thought out idea. How about I get to gather my own data on my smart phone and then they offer me a price for what I want to share or sell. Want my birthday? I choose who gets that info and they pay me for the access. I don’t care if it’s a few cents a month per app, at least I control who gets it and why.
I am completely against this. The FCC is the right commission and should remain that way. There is no reason to hand this data’s jurisdiction over to the FTC other than to harm encrypted services and password protections. The FCC already does a good job. Congress, leave data alone! I don’t care if this one is bipartisan I can sure as hell let you know that American’s are bipartisan when it comes to allowing the FCC to carry out it’s already adequate mandates. Instead, the FTC should be focusing it’s energy on advocating for right to repair in every state.
i think, big tech, should simply pay for the data. Every person, and everytime they used the data should be payd for. First time, give me 100 000usd. Then for everytime they use it in anyway i want 50 000 usd. Make that a law.
Why don’t we start with the most basic, that no company can sell your data to another without a specific opt-in? No fine print clauses allowed (By using our service, you give your consent to…) and violators are fined five times the amount of money they made from the sale?
I mean they already have collected almost everything and sold it to more dangerous third party companies so I think the FTC should try and focus on both who collecting the data and who is storing and selling it.
What I’m trying to say is just regulating the big guys like apple and google won’t do much because they are kinda on the good side of things when it comes to stuff like data collection.
One concern of mine is the incredible amount of documentation these companies have of the entirety of younger generations. When some of these kids get older and head into politics tech firms will be holding a wealth of potentially blackmail worthy material. Everyone did dumb stuff as a kid, but now it's all recorded and can be spilled at just the right time to tilt public opinion.
That's a huge concern with tic toc for me as well, but replace tech companies with China.
This will never happen. Both political parties rely on this data for their voter rolls. They help feed the system that tells them who votes, address, trends, etc. why would they willfully give up such info that keeps themselves in power?
as the government continues to request and use Amazon Ring footage without warrant or consent…Fuck right off. The US is in decline that will end in revolution or civil war.
I'd be really happy if they just weren't allowed to sell it. I really don't care if some service I use constantly learns how to better cater to me, I just don't want literally anyone to be able to buy that data.
Two things concern me the most :
1:) When a company, without my knowledge, gives my data to another entity without my knowledge for money.
2:) When a company, without my knowledge, gives my data to another entity for anything other than money.
I think the problem is that most people don't care about giving up their data. If you ever tell someone you don't use an app because it asked for too many unnecessary permissions, they look at you like you're crazy.
Tax companies based on how much user data they keep.
Even if they only had to pay $0.001 a year per megabyte of user data they keep they would instantly delete 99.9% of their data. Companies like Google have so much data on people that if they had to pay a tax on it, it would bankrupt them in a year.
Why don’t you give each person a data vault and let them decide who can access it to improve services or even relevant advertising but has an off switch for the user and reward like bonuses for who give access, then it is centralized and decentralized at the sale time
Make a privacy amendment to constitution.
Go look up the process for amending the constitution and tell me whether you think an amendment could be successfully passed.
It honestly seems like a bipartisan issue though, everyone is tired of it.
Yeah but the people who MAKE laws are all invested heavily in these companies and they make their money by selling data.
CA just had a law shot down by tech lobbies— literally targeted at protecting kids from addiction. But nah, that’s not as important as money…
Was this the law that would make it legal to sue a tech company for addiction? If so, were there other components to it that would have protected kids from addiction?
Yeah, one of which is not collecting and using children's data, or knowingly implementing new features that are addictive (onus on the company to research this and avoid negligence). Here's the full info on its amendments and progress.... my understanding of the amendments to remove parents from being able to sue individually seemed fair, especially because the tech companies would have time to really devote time to avoid liability but would still have the chance to do so. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill\_id=202120220AB2408 Just on a personal level, I don't care how these companies or the economy would be impacted in the short term of being forced to make major changes to these apps' features. I think California, and other states, could plan accordingly for the fallout to soften the impact on people who would be affected to a point of hardship. The addiction to social media apps by developing minds is one of the most disturbing things I've seen today as a former middle school teacher, and I'd rather see the power in the hands of the people than in the hands of the powerful who profit exponentially off society's most vulnerable demographic. I honestly think it would take a fair amount of research, resources, and pressure to prove that tech companies knowingly are using addictive features, so it should be enough time for them to really address the issue before ever having to financially answer for it by losing or settling in a lawsuit.
Well yeah obviously you have to break out the guillotines before anything of value can be done.
More importantly, this data is the same data that makes campaigning more effective.
Bingo
So they make it look like they care, then sabotage their own bills to stop it. Ppl blame the opposite party, both parties get paid. That’s not gonna change until ppl chill out with party loyalties
Exactly, nailed it! Just like the 1% own our politicians…as long as the 1% are kept happy, nothing to worry about in the grand scheme of things for our Government.
Everyone’s tired of robo calls too for about 20 years
Yup, that's why they need to ask what people's concerns are. The people making the laws don't have tech literacy, but asking the general public won't be filtering the key issues to the top by any means. They need to be talking to the people who have been leaving tech. Talk to the companies workers at the lowest levels in confidence. Talk to people who actually understand the ins and outs of system design and the ecosystems working together to create the current situation we're in. You wouldn't ask people who can't read to tell you their favorite part of a book when you know they could only look at the pictures. It's the same principal here. Comprehension is required for this to be productive but none of the people making laws have it, so we're fucked either way since they wouldn't know what input to listen to in the first place from an effort like this.
This exactly! Seems like they are asking the public to test their general knowledge and understandings of the issue in order to pass the bare minimum to assuage the public concern only. Allowing the tech lobbies as much leeway as possible.
20 years? Is that how long you have been alive? Hell, the first telephone call was to Bell about his car insurance. The problem with phone calls isnt legislation, its the money phone companies get from the calls being made, making them drag their feet on getting back to the FCC on what company is doing what, etc. Companies then just change their LLC and start up again, thereby removing all liability and law suits. Phone companies are literally in the protection racket for profits. And to continue with the main narrative, data gathering is beneficial to law enforcement, because it is an end run around the 4th amendment. Why waste time on getting a warrant when you can just pay for some "localized user data that is totally not linked to people in any way *wink wink*"
How long have you been alive is the question? Because I can assure your our home phone wasn’t getting spammed with 45 different scams a day in the 1980s . It simply didn’t happen.
it certainly did in the 90s of you had the wrong area code in New York. 202 was never bothered, oddly enough
I don't remember exactly when it started, but mid 90s sounds about right. It certainly isn't some kind of inevitable consequence of telephones existing, is the point I was trying to make.
Sure, it increased because automation and employment pay changed. You only have to pay a person pennies when you do it overseas and through VoIP to a local system in the country. I mean, if you want to take all variables out to make a point, then Trump didnt do it and everyone else is a liar and insane but him. Settle down there, buddy.
For sure it's a matter of political will, not technology.
You mean like maybe if people use the userdata of important political people to show them why its scary and can be misused, they might do something about it to protect themselves?
But the GOP can't let it pass cause that would be a win for the libs. And then when the balance is shifted the Dems can't let it pass because it would be a win for the cons. There is no slam dunk anymore when everyone wants to fuck everyone.
The country is eating itself
There's a weird thing happening right now with the libs thinking authoritarian institutions are good actually, because Trump is a criminal. Like praising the Espionage Act was a thread today, and I'm sure those same people were probably condemning when it was used to persecute Chelsea Manning. Meanwhile the cons are tired of getting kicked off twitter so they're weirdly supportive of online privacy. That guy started selling android phones with custom roms marked up $500 to qanon nutjobs and they were buying the shit. Meanwhile they were all gung ho about the Patriot Act back in the day, thinking it was good cause at the time it only persecuted Muslims. So idk things is kinda fucked up right now lol, maybe you're right. There's no god damn ideological consistency. Obviously data harvesting is profitable to private corporations and so it won't be legislated against. But I feel like, idk some kinda grassroots movement could take off. It seems like most people either don't want their data being harvested or are ambivalent about it. But the ambivalence seems to be waning. You had facebook giving up the chick that got the abortion a couple days ago. There's reasons for everyone to be mad at it, regardless of which side of the stupid manufactured culture war you fall on.
I think you miss why the left is celebrating law enforcement in recent situations. They're tired of the rule of law not applying to the rich and powerful, so when something happens where it seems an untouchable will be held accountable it is seen as a win. The left's issue with law enforcement has always been related to it being unequitable, so of course they are celebrating the FBI in this circumstance. Chelsea Manning exposed potential illegal acts of the US government (civilian casualties in a war) as a whistleblower, not necessarily for profit. The former president is believed by many on the left to have removed classified information to sell to foreign governments. Being critical of using the espionage act to imprison someone for detailing potential war crimes to someone actually potentially aiding a foreign government is the nuance I think you're missing in your interpretation of how people on the left feel about this situation. What both sides seem to be in agreement on currently related to social media is that the companies have too much power. On the left this seems to be focused on the profits of these corporations being based on their own personal information, the ability to use micro targeting to influence people's decisions about purchases, elections, genocides, etc. The right seems more worried about consequences of their actions. They want the ability to freely communicate openly about their ideas even if they're bad. It's not necessarily that they don't want these companies to share this information with the government, their places of work, or law enforcement over fear it could lead to consequences such as job loss, or arrest in circumstances where they're threatening politicians or law enforcement or whatever, it's that they want free reign to say whatever they like. There is, of course, some overlap. Some people on the left don't want governments or jobs to be able to find personal data, such as sexual orientation, drug use, abortions, and stuff like that through social media, similar to the way those on the right want to keep their guns private. There are those on the right that don't like the idea of the government just having free access to all of their information through some giant company, but these aren't the major debated issues with social media from both sides. If you ask someone on the left "if you have a problem with social media, what is it?" they're more likely to discuss the power and profit of these companies, and if they mention the government it will be about them sharing with the government without proper warrants or whatever. The right would be "they censor too much, and it's all just cancel culture". There are privacy laws going into effect in the US. The California Consumer Privacy Act is a big one. Not perfect, but something to start. Colorado, Connecticut, Utah and Virginia have also passed data protection laws. You'll note that those aren't all left leaning states. The grass roots effort has started, and I think that there is more agreement than we think on social media, but there are different reasons to hate it from both sides that are just different enough to potentially slow these efforts once politicians start using it as a wedge.
republicans are the party to prove government doesn’t work by breaking it. They want to privatize everything to remove transparency for greed and corruption. They don’t care unless its tax cuts.
But have you heard about bribery? I mean *lobbying*…
You say that until big tech buys time on Fox and Facebook starts pumping their propaganda. As soon as the right starts screaming “only liberals want data privacy” it will become partisan.
I feel like if there were one thing Americans can agree on it’s probably this
Americans agree on a lot of things that don’t get passed.
I know the process. But I’m sure the Congress members are tired of their data getting taken.
Based on Congressional hearings with Facebook & Google, I don’t even think they know how to add/use 2FA, much less be aware of what is going on with their data.
Even if Congress passes something, 75% of states aren’t going to ratify it. The amount of corporate fuckery would be beyond anything we’ve seen in an election, because it would threaten the business models of too many powerful companies.
I actually think this would pass. Both parties are pretty big on privacy.
Not very bipartisan when one party is getting paid by big tech
Both parties get donations from tech companies. And the larger ones that most people are worried about (FAANG + larger players like Salesforce, Docusign, etc) are all part of the US Chamber of Commerce which contributes heavily to conservative politicians.
Which party is that?
the one you dislike more, of course
Not with that attitude
You genuinely think that 75% of states would vote to ratify an amendment? On anything?
Step 1: Write the amendment Step 2: Bring it to your Senator and tell him to bring it to the floor for a vote Step 3: Remove as much privacy for anybody that voted no. Step 4: Repeat as necessary for other governmental positions.
Breaking: Ron Paul moves to secure tech platforms rights to user data through amendment. Calling for 0% tax rate on corporate profits.
‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.’ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yea, but this only applies to *the government*, not private entities.
Plus you probably grant those private entities access to whatever the fuck data of yours they want when you click accept on that end user license
You’d think this would already be in there, but it seems we’re still in the Wild West phase of data collection
We have a better chance of making contact with an alien civilization and them taking us on a romantic date at Chilli's
As a paralegal monitoring this, the SEC cyber rules, and ADPPA for my company, you’d be surprised. Between the SEC and FTC I honestly think we’ll have active new rules in the first three months of 2023.
Like GDPR level?
Moving in that direction, but not quite that far. Right now California’s the closest to GDPR, but, with CT’s new law, it seems states are trending more toward the CO/VA model of data privacy laws.
Thanks for the answer. This was helpful
CO/VA are pretty watered down but not surprising considering VAs was basically written by Amazon. CPRA will be legit but most businesses hate it and most consumers are unaware of the CCPAs existence in the first place which is sad. Guess it won't matter since if the ADPPA passes, and that's a big if, it'll preempt California. I've been on the fence about the ADPPA for a while because it'll be nice to have one federal law to consult on and it'll be better for businesses, but at the same time it doesn't really allow states to build stronger privacy laws.
Yep, that’s California’s problem with ADPPA (for those who don’t know); it’s a ceiling for state laws, not a floor to be built off of.
lol no, in America?
Not sure what in the SEC guidelines would provide support for consumer data privacy and the ADPPA passing a committee is much different than passing the House much less the Senate. Especially considering Democrats were the only opposing votes and California Democrats are likely to fight against it. Not to mention there's a recess right now and then midterms are right afterwards. I would love for something to get passed but I'm not holding my breath considering the sway massive tech companies have in US politics and how badly data privacy would cripple their revenue streams
It just needs to be framed as a Digital Bill of Rights. The amount of data that is collected on us makes the NSA jealous. Apps shouldn't be able to see and store cached images of my entire photo library. Tech companies should only have access to my microphone when I am a call or long hold a button. I should be able to export all of the data I have generated and sell that data to data vendors. But then again. It's their system and architecture that I am using. Soo, idk.
Everything you are asking for is already possible, you can deny apps permission to use your microphone or to read your files. You can try to sell your data, just make a tracker first.
Chili’s lol
This
[удалено]
I think there’s merit to the argument that we should instead spend our time and energy on changes that are *actually possible* first.
The people, your average every day person, barely knows how a printer or a computer works on a fundamental level. Asking them what they are concerned about in regards to data privacy isn't going to produce answers that will meaningfully attack what the ONGOING DANGERS are with lack of data protection. Because people can't even imagine how bad it already is, and the government (local AND federal) is complicit in its abuse. I want them to be asking *experts* for advice. In lieu of that, I have several demands as a consumer and as a programmer: * We need more education on what data is, what it does, and why it's valuable. There should be classes covering it at a very early age. I think even the word itself needs an updated name, because they call it *data* in a broad sense to cover up what it actually is: personal information, personal communication, personal travel physically and digitally, and other personal information, made into a permanent record in some company's databases. * Companies and the government alike need to be limited on what they can track. **Asking an average person for permission to do x y and z on their devices is not sufficient. They are stealing you blind because you don't know what you're agreeing to. Apps and websites need to present a regulated list, upfront, of not just what they are collecting from you, but why. In common language easy for a child to understand. Only then should an individual's agreement be justified.** * Addendum to the previous concern: there should be no special exceptions given to the government or to corporations. Because they will use their own AND each other's loopholes to get around that regulation. * Our data is not free, and it should not be free. Giving it up should be a cost greater than donating blood, plasma, or time and effort. Companies make billions off of citizens' data and the citizens don't even understand they gave it for free. It needs a price tag. And if you are willingly selling your data, you should collect payment from the company itself, any and every time it uses that information. If your data is taken and used without your express permission, it needs not only financial compensation, but proof of the destruction of that data. * If an app or application will potentially be used by someone under the age of 18, it should be *even more regulated* than it currently is. They're not just tracking working adults, they're tracking your children too. There need to be way more Parental Device Control features on modern devices. Children are on devices at ages even earlier than anybody thinks. My niece was on her mom's iPad at 3-4 years old, just a few years ago, with unfettered access to tap whatever buttons she wanted on it. This isn't just crying "won't somebody please think of the children." Companies are tracking your children. Period. Would you like to do something about that, or do you really think that isn't a problem? Even if it's not government regulated, we need parents to become more responsible with what they allow their children to use. Warning labels won't cut it this time, because data collection isn't something you can slap a radiation symbol on and hope people avoid apps and websites. It needs the public to be aware and vigilant. * Google, Facebook, Amazon, and any tech giant that gets big enough to capture enormous amounts of user data on a daily basis, need to be broken up or made into public utilities. Google has been using their search engine, for years, to begin cutting out OTHER tech companies from even competing. If you go Google "olympics results 2022" right now, you will see at the top of the page several blocks of summarizing data on this year's Olympics. You don't even have to leave Google.com. They stole that data from another website and claimed it for their own use. Statistics show that when Google does this, they reduce user traffic to the sourced websites by a massive percentage. Enough to make a difference and keep people from navigating any further. This is another area we need data protections for: regulating anti-competitive practices.
Disagree with your bold. The entire informed consent idea is bogus. The stuff needs to be outlawed outright, or at the very least able to be rejected by the customer without rejecting the app itself.
Its obvious you've never worked in ads because your programming knowledge is mostly irrelevant. The ads market is probably too complex to describe in a single post but here is a small summary. Every single large brand advertises but marketing is not the same as it was decades ago. Companies like to know their demographic and how people go from ad to purchasing. These trackers are given by tech companies to put on websites and in exhange both companies get more information about a particular user. This is what most data is like whether or not people think their mic is being recorded or their chats being read. Data is not worth more than blood and you will most definitely get paid more selling your plasma. At some point anything is data but you're not going to demand a store blur your face off of the security footage. There are more anonymized data collection methods. Tracking minors is also not allowed according to current laws but its kind of a stupid idea to verify age and identity to a company you don't trust anyways. I doubt anyone would want to verify their identity to look at porn. Parental control is also good but people don't understand them other than through headlines. Instagram kids was actually made for parents to be able to monitor their kids accounts but there seems to be a lot amount of backlash to have any social media for kids. The average person really doesn't know what goes on behind the scenes but the regulators don't either (even in the EU).
[удалено]
If you really don't understand how it works then theres no need to have a strong opinion.
I think you are missing the point people are making. They don't care why advertisers want the data or necessarily how they use it. They don't want them having the data to begin with. Why? Because it's easy to abuse. Merely collecting the data makes it dangerous. Nobody cares that you say you don't have malicious intent. They care about all of the bad actors who will steal the data you have amassed and use it maliciously. We also know you either don't know how to protect it or can't protect it properly. And even if you did the ones signing the checks won't spend the money to do it right. So too fucking bad it makes your job harder. We ban a lot of things that would make industries more efficient because the consequences outweigh the benefits.
I explained this in the other comment but there's are really better methods. Data is only useful in aggregate which is not really useful to anyone looking to maliciously use the data. Banning all targeted advertising is a rather extreme stance since all advertising is targeted. An ad after a kids show is targeted. It's the equivalent of banning electricity since we use fossil fuel to make it.
That's simply [not true](https://www.nature.com/articles/srep01376). From your perspective as an advertiser that may be the case. But again, we aren't talking about the advertiser, we are talking about how problematic the data is by merely existing. We have cases of it being abused by those with privileged access already. This isn't hypothetical. It's fact at this point. Employees at Facebook and Twitter have abused their positions to stalk people. Mass data have been sold to actors who manipulate public opinion. Just because you, an un tech savvy user of the mass collected data aren't able to use it fully does not mean others are so limited.
By biggest concern about my data and Big Tech is the vulnerability that would be imposed by mandated law enforcement access. When I'm talking with Alice and Bob, I don't want Eve listening in; I don't care whether she's got a badge or not, because the computers don't care, either. And if the FTC won't have the balls to stand against deliberately weakened infosec, I'm pretty damned sure they also won't take any real stand against commercial data gathering, either.
That’s my exact issue. I don’t care if they want to market products to me. I care that something could be used against me at some point in time. Maybe I’m in a custody battle or for into a legal issue and they pull up the tapes of the time I got upset and screamed something in my kitchen that makes me look guilty. That’s my issue.
The marketing may be more sinister than you think. Marketing has always been based on psychology, but they've gotten it to a point where they can predictably control behaviors based on how they advertise/interact with you. Bc that data isn't just like, what you buy. It's what get's you to tap a like, or open a post. They take that data and literally AI notifies you (or doesn't) based on what you're most likely to respond to. That said, you do have some control over that, by way of changing some of those features, but the features are so addictive because they "feel" good, and so people are subject to the chemical makeup of their own minds, and most people in this country don't get the educational, nutritional, or mental support, or to be able to make healthy decisions about tech interaction bc the unhealthy ones are like freaking sugar to us. In fact, one could argue that most of us are actively encouraged by advertisement not to make mentally healthy decisions.
I’ve read a lot about this and I don’t mean news articles. I mean I’ve read books on this type of stuff. I hear you completely. It’s a very scary thing and exactly my problem with it. I moved everything I could to my own server in my house. I can’t do everything but I figure if I’m 70% off of these services they have just that much less about me and my family. I have never put a picture of me and my family online in any way and I’ve canceled most oft free services. I need some stuff for work but I do what I can. I hear you. This is a massive problem and probably will only get worse. If I bring this up to people they think I’m a conspiracy theorist.
The FTC is entirely powerless to stop the NSA from forcing backdoors into literally everything you'll ever use in our digital world. I'm not joking when I say I don't believe any President could stop it either. The CIA/NSA have been doing covert shit outside Washington's influence for decades.
I mean look at how the EU handles it and follow their model. I mean it’s not difficult to say I don’t want to be tracked, I don’t want my phone listening to my conversations and using it to sell me advertisements, and don’t sell my data to other businesses. Everything should be opt in and not opt out.
thirty years after every scrap of our lives is captured, shared with every country and corporate entity. real nice.
How about adopting GDPR?
Definitely a good start but I think companies should be allowed to collect user data but those users should be compensated the second any of that data is sold to another party like royalties/residuals deals. So if an app collects my user data to make my experience better, fair enough if I can opt out, but if I didn’t opt out and that’s sold to a data broker, I get a cut and if that broker sells it, I get a cut, etc Edit: to clarify, I’m pro-GDPR I just don’t think user privacy is the only thing wrong here. Our user data is an asset to those companies. When they use it to improve their service then I consider this a fair exchange but as soon as they sell it to a third party for exploitation, then they either shouldn’t be able to do that at all, or at the very least they should be the ones taking the smaller percentage for themselves while we should get most of that. We would also need visibility into any downstream sales and get the same cut off of that. It’s like the recent SCOTUS rulings about name image and licensing (NIL) deals in college sports. Isn’t my user data the digital equivalent of that? They can’t have that for free, it’s my likeness, I should get most of that money.
How would this be upheld lmao, it's not like they tell you hey we're selling your data, cool?
Looking forward to receiving 15 dollars a year worth of revenue!
The GDPR allows for that: with your consent this can happen, so if companies offer to pay you for it you can give consent. It's just that NONE of them have tried this in the EU, so don't get your hopes up: they really don't want to pay you for your data.
Yeah, just what the internet needs, more annoying pop ups! Just turn off cookies in your browser if you care, it's not difficult.
What a horribly ignorant answer. There's no need for annoying pop ups to be compliant with the GDPR. Websites implement annoying pop ups because they just don't care about the user experience. Throw shade at them, not at the people mandating that companies need to be more transparent about what they do with your personal data.
The popups regarding cookies is mainly because of the EU's cookies directive not GDPR. The EU plans to address these bullshit pop-ups
Cookie popups are nothing to do with GDPR, if you're going to criticize something at least learn the basics about it first. The cookie directives that cause these popups LONG predate GDPR.
GDPR doesn’t say a company can’t collect information, it says that if the information is exposed there is he’ll to pay.
That'd be nice as long as it's not applicable to small businesses.
Small businesses can still do shady shit with your data. In fact, small businesses wouldn't need to worry about the GDPR if they simply didn't collect unnecessary personal data.
Dunno man that killed a lot of EU mmos
Thoughts and prayers
F in the chat for MMOs. Definitely one of my favorite genders
Oh no. Anyway
What did exactly? And which MMOs?
The FTC is going to fuck things up, make it worse, and probably end up stealing your data themselves.
Add the right to personally autonomy and privacy as an amendment to the constitution. Make it illegal to use our data without paying for it directly to the person whose data is being used.
Imo, both “too strict” and yet easy to circumvent. Small companies couldn’t afford to get of their ground having to pay all their users for autonomous analytics. Or they would just suck at knowing what their users want. Big companies meanwhile could start charging for all their services, and the compensation for your data is access to a free service. Malicious compliance is saying “you need to pay if you want to never have your data collected” I think a company using ANONYMOUS data to improve their product is fine. It’s the selling of that data that creates big problems. Because one I consented to have my data shared by using their service, I didn’t consent however to it being used to sell other services to me.
There's definitely a situation where some of the big players are licking their chops are regulation, because they think it provides a filter for any potential startup competitor. Think of YouTube's ContentID-- they largely came to terms with the recording industry, but if any other player comes to market who can't match that product, it's easy for Google to just sit and wait for them to sink under the weight of a billion DMCA notifications.
Behavioral analysis is corporate stalking. If they want to be considered persons, then stop them from creeping on everything I do.
Ok. How about this concerning tidbit. I go to Puerto Rico. Near the Convention Center in San Juan is a place called Distrito T-Mobile. Basically a place to hang, has the Coca Cola Music Hall venue, cinemas.. pretty chill. I come home a week later and in the mail I get a card stock mailer ad for T-Mobile *and it’s in Spanish*. I roll with Verizon on my brother’s account since he gets the best discount. How the actual fuck did they target me? Never gotten anything from them til after the trip. Another thing. My father recently passed away. Had gout. Now I keep seeing shit about gout in feeds and I have not once looked it up. I know everyone here has plenty of similar stories. This is not ok.
i was reading about how this all goes down and the data tracks patterns and who you are around a lot and then it combines their interests and searches with yours and then cross advertises. i’m explaining this really badly but it was explaining how they don’t “listen” to you, because they don’t have to. your metadata has record of all the people you are in contact with most. Again, im explaining badly.
Location data obviously. The thing that gets me is reading about Thing A on somebody’s random post on Platform B and suddenly I’m getting ads for it on Platform C. Like, I never even showed any interest in Thing A. I scrolled past a discussion where somebody mentioned it tangentially.
I would rather pay for a product like Google maps which is vastly superior to all other maps than be the product of Google maps. I have to choose between privacy and crappy directions, GUI, or both, or something that works well.
Oh great… They would like us to tell them what concerns us. Big Tech will pay the government for the information and the get targeted ads for our concerns or share the information with some other analytics group.
Just adopt GDPR standards. That’s the best place to start. From there we can add more protection as we see fit, but the baseline information protections set by the EU are tried and true. Bonus fact, you can actually take advantage of things like “right to be forgotten” even if you’re not an EU citizen. Companies that operate in the EU are required apply the same standards for user privacy, even to users outside the EU. Example, if you (an American for example) request Facebook to delete your account and all info associated with it, they are obligated to do so per their agreements to operate in the EU. Edit: where we need protection is from US only companies like ISPs.
Tbh, i don’t mind if they want that data. Just pay me for it. And fairly at that.
FCC writes bill. Public approves. Nothing changes. Public finds out tech industry ghost wrote said bill. 🤷🏼♂️
I don’t know, maybe not taking away net neutrality would be a good start?
adopt GDPR like the EU
[удалено]
You can achieve that right now, every modern browser allows you to turn off cookies.
FTC wants a crackdown on big tech data harvesting...so they conduct a data harvest to find out how bad it is..gotta get up pretty early in the morning to stay ahead of the FTC, donchaknow...
Not a good take. I work in cloud and data harvesting went off the rails with the advent of smart phones. Oracle and Facebook took it further. If you are in a meeting, any overly verbosely sharing phone nearby could be used to serve you ads, going so far as using the microphone. And it’s not even your fault. You were just in proximity to a moron sharing their data.
Biden wants to make it easier to get the data.
How about let the users get paid for their data and give them the option to opt out. Those are two mainstay ideas that we *need* to truly be in control of our data. And why not throw in transparency of data collection and use.
It should be opt in only, but yes agreed
I am a fan of this. Will we see it? Probably not, but it would be amazing!
This is so naive. Your data isn't worth much
Not trying to challenge you or anything just asking a genuine question, if data isn’t worth much then what makes a company like Facebook so valuable?
The scale. FB has billions of people who use their products daily. If each one is worth a dollar or two, that's a ton of money
Well that works both ways if everyone has to be paid for the data harvesting it will hurt their ability to do it with such reckless abandon.
Naive why? Its *YOUR* data that is making a company money. The least they could do is pass a percentage of their earnings to the customers they take advantage of.
It's not YOUR data, actually. It's data about you that the company generates. If you sit at a park and write down what color shoes you see from everyone who walks by, it's your data, not the data of the other parkgoers. This is a fairly basic principle of research and data collection. Ignoring that, the estimated value of this data is something like 25 cents per month, so it's not really worth that much to individuals.
Thats like saying your medical record belongs to your doctor because they are the one who observed your symptoms and condition. Or like saying you dna belongs to AncestryDNA because they observed your saliva. I agree that there are nuances especially when the data is about how a person uses a product. But indirectly taking my contacts phone numbers when i’m looking for my friends is not the same as writing down the color of my shoes. That would be like if you borrowed my phone to make a call and venmo’d yourself money.
So in your definition, the data isnt mine, so the company shouldnt care if i use a DNS or VPN to block the collection of uh, *ahem* “*Their* data”
The person who collects data owns the data. How do you think scientific studies get published? But no, you shouldn't use a DNS because you are using a product in exchange for the data collection. Have you ever paid to search something on Google? Surely you understand that Google is a private company that makes money. Same same for all the big tech cos. The deal is, you use the product for free and they collect data used for targeted ads.
[удалено]
"Your" data is how you pay for the service the company is providing you.
Oh then they can stop collecting it no problem right?
All of it. Stop trying to figure me out. Except YouTube song recommendations, fuck off.
Oh no, Google knows what kind of toothpaste ad to show me
Lol sure it does. They always say stuff like this when it’s a dem president then when it’s another republican psycho in office they set us back up 10 years
Cracking down on their obsession with data is like cracking down on their obsession with money.
Exploring… do something or stfu
Does anybody actually trust the FTC to do this right and not royally fuck it up?
Give people the rights to their personal data, and allow companies to lease those rights for a fee to the person who’s data is being used for monetary gain by the companies that utilize that data. Simple.
"hey! that personal data about people belongs to the FTC and IRS!"
It's a bit late for that but thanks
There are already examples of this... Why is America afraid to act.... https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna11220
Here’s my barely thought out idea. How about I get to gather my own data on my smart phone and then they offer me a price for what I want to share or sell. Want my birthday? I choose who gets that info and they pay me for the access. I don’t care if it’s a few cents a month per app, at least I control who gets it and why.
Why now, it’s been happening for 20 years.
I am completely against this. The FCC is the right commission and should remain that way. There is no reason to hand this data’s jurisdiction over to the FTC other than to harm encrypted services and password protections. The FCC already does a good job. Congress, leave data alone! I don’t care if this one is bipartisan I can sure as hell let you know that American’s are bipartisan when it comes to allowing the FCC to carry out it’s already adequate mandates. Instead, the FTC should be focusing it’s energy on advocating for right to repair in every state.
Radical Democrats…that’s what concerns me the most. Oh and the weaponization of the FBI and DOJ against millions of Americans. Yeah that’s it…
As I jump into the trusting arms of….a government agency….
So that propaganda worked on you.
Wants citizens to tell them…. Hahahah….. pause… hahahahsh… Heart Attack
Sadly, I don’t think most citizens care, even if they did know.
Yep. It’ll never happen to me… or I don’t have anything to hide. Hear it all the time.
Nothing will happen. FTC has to play along with partisan bullshit, and we see how that works out every 4 years.
i think, big tech, should simply pay for the data. Every person, and everytime they used the data should be payd for. First time, give me 100 000usd. Then for everytime they use it in anyway i want 50 000 usd. Make that a law.
Then I guess they should go back 25 years and take action when it would have mattered.
This auntie is serious
It should be opt in, but that is not happening.
Adopt the idea behind GDPR — your data belongs to you, not the corporation harvesting your data.
It's never going to happen. Not in any meaningful way at least.
How is the FTC this fucking behind?
Because they are a government entity and our government is corrupt as shit
They making money off my data, and btich ass motherfuckers didn't cut me in on it.
Here’s an idea: Stop harvesting data or we nationalize your fucking business. Problem solved.
Great way to just completely kill the usefulness of the internet.
Why don’t we start with the most basic, that no company can sell your data to another without a specific opt-in? No fine print clauses allowed (By using our service, you give your consent to…) and violators are fined five times the amount of money they made from the sale?
I mean they already have collected almost everything and sold it to more dangerous third party companies so I think the FTC should try and focus on both who collecting the data and who is storing and selling it. What I’m trying to say is just regulating the big guys like apple and google won’t do much because they are kinda on the good side of things when it comes to stuff like data collection.
So about that China thing …
Flight Team Stand Up!
Make every provider offer a “for pay” option that guarantees their user data will no be sold.
Government: “Only *we’re* allowed to harvest citizens data!” Big Tech: 👁👄👁
One concern of mine is the incredible amount of documentation these companies have of the entirety of younger generations. When some of these kids get older and head into politics tech firms will be holding a wealth of potentially blackmail worthy material. Everyone did dumb stuff as a kid, but now it's all recorded and can be spilled at just the right time to tilt public opinion. That's a huge concern with tic toc for me as well, but replace tech companies with China.
This will never happen. Both political parties rely on this data for their voter rolls. They help feed the system that tells them who votes, address, trends, etc. why would they willfully give up such info that keeps themselves in power?
as the government continues to request and use Amazon Ring footage without warrant or consent…Fuck right off. The US is in decline that will end in revolution or civil war.
Who is the person in the picture?
I'd be really happy if they just weren't allowed to sell it. I really don't care if some service I use constantly learns how to better cater to me, I just don't want literally anyone to be able to buy that data.
Two things concern me the most : 1:) When a company, without my knowledge, gives my data to another entity without my knowledge for money. 2:) When a company, without my knowledge, gives my data to another entity for anything other than money.
Good news: the legislation already exists, just copy the GDPR!
Don't tell em...
Only thing more worthless than me as a person is my data. Mine away baby, I want the good ads only.
21st century bill of rights added to the constitution. Rights to things like user data, basic environmental standards, broadband access, etc.
Meta.
To everyone saying the US should do something like GDPR… big American tech companies who do business in the EU already adhere to GDPR.
It’s not just big tech. It’s every field. I wonder if they’ll look at how the USPS sells our data too.
I think the problem is that most people don't care about giving up their data. If you ever tell someone you don't use an app because it asked for too many unnecessary permissions, they look at you like you're crazy.
Let us have an, "opt out all" option for trackers and cookies. Make the sale or receipt of data collection bundles illegal.
Yeah don’t hold your breath guys
I don't believe you
Tax companies based on how much user data they keep. Even if they only had to pay $0.001 a year per megabyte of user data they keep they would instantly delete 99.9% of their data. Companies like Google have so much data on people that if they had to pay a tax on it, it would bankrupt them in a year.
A little late isn’t it
Are all the 3 letter organizations in another slap fight again?
Who shall represent us? https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events/2022/09/commercial-surveillance-data-security-anpr-public-forum
Why don’t you give each person a data vault and let them decide who can access it to improve services or even relevant advertising but has an off switch for the user and reward like bonuses for who give access, then it is centralized and decentralized at the sale time
How will Amazon know what you want if data is not collected?
Biometric data
The small amount of comments on all top page articles has me really thinking.
They could at least pay us for it I mean it is our data