Hacker News Reader

Comment by eanzenberg | Hacker News Reader

Data is absolutely an asset. All decisions are driven by data (could be personal, biased, anecdotal, etc.), so why not make decisions based on more data points? It's cute to think you can "ask questions first, then collect" but this wastes time in 2015. Imagine being asked at Netflix "calculate the % watch through of 18-21 year olds for kids movies", then a week later "for action movies in the 1980s. As opposed to having the viewing info for all your users before these questions arise.

BTW, users DO want you to use their data to improve your service. Otherwise google, facebook, twitter, netflix, etc. would not be as successful as they are. Liability only comes into play when OTHER parties access (legally or illegally) your data.

View on HN

Well, this collecting data is exactly why the US tech industry is considered to be reckless with privacy and safety of data.

And lawcases have shown that the "we record everything" in the ToS is legally null and void – only stuff the user directly expects to be recorded are legal.

If you are a flashlight app, and in your ToS is "we’ll send all your contacts to a third-party company", then this is void, and if you do so, the user can sue you. As has happened with Facebook in the EU several times.

This reckless "we’ll record everything" is why the EU is planning their new "you can't record anything unless directly allowed to, and you can not sell it or give it away to any third-party entities, not even governments" law. (Well, the last part was thanks to the NSA).

This attitude hurts the US tech industry.

I am perfectly fine with that, in fact I expect it when using services like google and facebook. I expect that facebook is crunching my data and feeding me ads, while the advertisers never see who I am or what I'm about.

Well, it's simple: If people are outraged when you tell them what facebook actually stores, then it's not okay.

And the outrage exists.

I do not think anyone should store anything about me unless I explicitly want to give it to them.

One example is Google's horrible traffic tracking system. In my city every lane of every intersection has a separate inductive loop to measure traffic congestion, speed and amount. Also every few hundred meters between intersections. Perfect data, and you only collect as much as necessary.

In comparison, Google's system: Track the location of everyone, and then check if people are moving slowly on a road in a car.

One of these stores an Orwellian amount of information, the other stores just as much as necessary.

Anyway, as a German, I hate this type of data collection. Yes, I openly admit, I hate the business model of the US startup industry. And I hope this fad stops very soon, as currently we have a truly dystopian nightmare of data collection.

Just think about what a less-democratic government could do if they'd get elected in the US in a few years. They could seize Google's data, force them to comply (like the NSA already did) and then use the data against the people.

You have location data of almost everyone, and not just for now, but for every day for the past 5 years. With 5 minutes accuracy. You have banking data and access, emails, browser and search history.

This is too much power that rests in a single place. Potential for abuse is insane.

A company being successful doing X does not mean that X is what users want.

Some users probably want Google etc. to use all data available to improve their services, but some don't. The vast majority of those companies' users don't think about how the companies use their data at all. The services get better, sure, but I don't think the full price has yet been paid.

> users DO want you to use their data to improve your service.

The tech industry really needs to stop projecting what they want to be true. This is a common delusion, unfortunately, and it is exactly this attitude that will eventually bring legislation to restrict data collection.

> Otherwise [...] would not be as successful as they are.

They are successful because they offer a useful way to take advantage of the massive utility available in a General Purpose Computer. Data collection is largely hidden from people, either intentionally or simply because it requires extensive engineering knowledge to understand all of the various tracking techniques and their how they are used.

From personal experience, as I've explained what is actually happening to people, a very common response is, "This cannot possibly be legal. Why aren't they in jail?" This addiction to data only makes you a stalker or peeping tom.

That "engagement" of people using various services isn't people happily - it's people who do not see any other option. When most people don't know about alternatives (if they even exist), most people end up resigned to using services they know are harmful[1].

If you want to see if people actually want to make this kind of exchange, get proper informed consent first. Put it in a contract, and make sure they understand the data they are giving up and what it will be used for. Anything less than this, and you're taking advantage of ignorance.

> Liability only comes into play when OTHER parties access (legally or illegally) your data.

Liability isn't in play right now because it has been kept out of legislation partly from successful lobbying by the telco and software industries, but mostly because our political system is currently a dysfunctional mess. Eventually, this kind of irresponsible, antisocial behavior will piss enough people off, and legislation to fix this liability problem will follow.

[1] https://www.asc.upenn.edu/news-events/publications/tradeoff-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com