Data Factories
stratechery.com
stratechery.com
Basically the inverse of the Internet. The tech is straightforward, the user experience and the culture would need to get there.
I'm not sure if a plurality of people in the U.S. believe that they should have an expectation of privacy... or at least they seem willing to trade it for loose credit, free services, and a general feeling of security.
Social networks often enable people's worst tendencies but they were always there.
In a way, fiction might be considered pro-privacy because it attracts attention that might otherwise be directed at real people.
Imagine living in an actual small village - there's no anonymity or pseudonimity, any information is either private or public with almost nothing in the middle. If you go to a store, the shopkeeper knows not only your purchase history, but your interests, your family, your habits, your relationships, your personal events and thus what you're likely to buy. If you're going to get married, they know that as you come in through the door. If you buy condoms, they'll likely know with whom you're going to use them; if you buy baby socks, that'll inform them who's pregnant. If you ask someone for Jane's phone number, people will know that you're interested in Jane and make any conclusions that are obvious. If you call Jane, the (early 20th century style) phone switchboard operator knows that she connected you to Jane, and possibly even might be listening in; she shouldn't, but she might. If you go somewhere where people see your face, everybody knows (through gossip) when and where you went. The old lady sitting on her porch performs much more invasive surveillance than any security camera could do. For every fact, either it's kept as a secret that (almost) nobody knows, or it's likely to be known by everybody who cares. If you keep something in your bedroom, that's private, but everything that you do or say in the public is, well, totally public.
IMHO (I'd be happy to hear counterexamples) everything creepy that modern "data factories" can do with your data was being done in such a village. Many (most?) of us have gotten used to a big-city anonymous lifestyle, but it relies on the fact that most people around us (e.g. people passing you by on the street) simply ignore what they see because they don't care about us. That wasn't the reality for a long time in history and possibly won't be in the future.
While it's tempting to consider consumer credit a convenience, the shift in ability and expectations makes consumer credit a baseline and its lack a detriment. This is not unlike how an automobile was a luxury item a hundred years ago, eventually enabling settlement patterns to shift away from needing to be dense and close to public transport, but now most of the US needs automobiles to travel between home, work, and services. Because of the prevalence of cars, there's a large pool of customers (or renters, or workers) available to any particular establishment, so losing access to one's car will rapidly deprive them out of opportunities, housing, and jobs. This is also similar to the way requirements for educational attainment rise over time, or how the rise of two-income households has meant that one-income households are finding themselves at more and more of a comparative disadvantage.
Surveillance of public streets is an unfortunate matter, because there's no realistic choice to opt out. One can be staunchly opposed to them, but avoidance is difficult and often draws even more attention.
The 'data factory' issue is distinguished from these quandaries precisely because opting out is attainable and within reach, subject only to (the still-high bar of) convenience and social fashions, as opposed to some inconvenient economic reality.
The reason most trade liberty for security / convenience, is that liberty requires responsibility.
I think a even more powerful lever would be having laws that allow consumers easily export their data from one platform to another or make internet companies adopt a common standard for increasing interoperability of users data.
If only there'd be an incentive for a few large companies to pull this off, the way they do with other standards (see HTML5 or AV1 for recent examples).
The reason I believe that is pretty simple- the government typically doesn't get things done and its been that way for a long time. That's due to a number of reasons. In Facebook and Google's cases its the powerful lobbying ability and best attorneys combined with elected officials' extreme risk-aversion to actually doing things combined with a pretty poor understanding of the situation by law makers. It's far safer to make grandiose statements and finger-wag than to gain support for, and ultimately pass legislation.
People hoping for regulation should be careful what they wish for, as I'd bet that if something does pass, it is precisely these companies that will help author it which likely won't be great for competition.
Same deal for the California Consumer Privacy Act.
These are laws which people hoped for, and got done.
Ultimately, it increasingly seems like advertising-surveillance as a business model may not be one we want to live with. The costs are externalized very effectively, and it’s kind of hard to know what to do with them.
The right not to be subject to automated decision-making is a typically short-sighted example.
Based on what are you saying this? As long as the rules are the same for all competition in a market will still happen.
I also hope that the GDPR will move the focus of innovation away from sucking up more and more data to do better advertising to other areas.
Sure, but in continental law the rules aren't the same for everyone. The laws are defined such that technical breaches are almost impossible to avoid. They empower a regulator with capricious and arbitrary power to sanction organisations - or not - with no requirement for consistency or recourse.
The answer to any technical question along the lines of "Is X illegal under the GDPR?" is "Nobody knows - we'll find out once the regulator fines someone."
That's bad law-making.
Quote The most important thing that regulators could do is force Facebook and Google — and all data collectors — to disclose their factory output. Give users the ability to see not simply what they put in — which again, Google and Facebook do (and which GDPR requires), but also what comes out after all of the inputs are mixed and matched. End Quote
What would this even look like? How could a user even recognize/test that it was about them beyond the things that seem obvious to them?