> - Consumers can opt out of their data being sold, and businesses can’t retaliate by changing the price or level of service.
> - Businesses can, however, offer “financial incentives” for being allowed to collect data.
Seems to me that it’s a distinction without a difference. Is there something I’m missing?
Basically this puts Facebook in a real tight situation, I honestly wonder how they will survive it.
However, a mass movement to opt-out would absolutely affect them. This lays the groundwork for that, and thats what they should be afraid of.
Correct.
On top of that, many people on HN, aware of the privacy implications, continue to have a Google Home / Alexa in their homes. Myself included.
Sadly, I (and many people) simply don't care about privacy. The probability/expected negatives of surveillance abuse is far less than the benefit of being able to turn my lights on and off with my voice.
The US will for sure become like China in 10-20 years, with regards to surveillance.
I very much doubt it. It is one thing when a bunch of small and big companies collect pieces of data about you, and another when the centralized governmentt does it.
Also, it really matters what that data is used for. I would be hard-pressed to compare the onslaught of personalized ads with "disappearing" people who speak out against the government. Just look at US-related political posts on twitter. Why would you even need surveillance if people feel perfectly safe to publicly air out their negative feelings towards the government to a giant audience.
For example, I think it would be legal for Verizon to get around this law by increasing their prices by $5 across the board, and offering a $5 rebate for customers who want to opt-in to their data being sold.
But it would not be legal for Verizon to allow customers to opt-out of data collection by paying an extra $5 a month.
In the first approach, Verizon will not track by default and customers have to opt-in.
In the second approach, Verizon will track by default and customers have to opt-out.
A user isn't "paying" for privacy. Privacy comes by default (for a price) and a company can pay a user to harvest their data.
Financially, they both work out the same, but based on opt-in, opt-out behaviors and perception I presume they have a different impact. The wording specified by the law says that users should have a default expectation of privacy. They can actively choose to give that up for a fee.
The business profit loss side of it says, you can't build a business that assumes it gets to profit off harvesting user's data for free. User data has value, place a value on it, and make it an explicit part of the transaction.
Ah! I was always saying I'm surprised by the brazenness of gas stations to offer cash discounts in violation of their credit processing agreements. Today I learned that as of 2010 the law protects them. Thanks!
Which makes sense, most other countries actually roll sales tax and others into the advertised prices, and what you see is what you'll pay out the door.
I agree that there is no practical difference between the two, but given how deceptive companies can be when disclosing various pricing and hidden fees, this might be an attempt to curb that behavior?
1) allowing customers to opt-in to data collection by giving a them reward. In this case, the default behavior does not involve data collection
2) allowing customers to opt out of data collection by paying a penalty. In this case, the default behavior involves data collection.
People usually don't bother to opt out.
The second line would allow companies to pay people to permit them to collect information. I imagine that because of the first statement, a company that is charging for the service cannot take advantage of this statement.