> Will that be banned as well?
I sure hope so.
> Many companies, including Google would have to significantly change their pricing model if so
Good. It would be even better if they have to change their business model.
I sure hope so.
> Many companies, including Google would have to significantly change their pricing model if so
Good. It would be even better if they have to change their business model.
The problem is the rampant data collection that is engaged in without my permission and/or knowledge, and that companies often forward that data to others.
Targeted/behavioral advertising in particular has monetized that abuse. I would be thrilled if that business model dies an agonizing death.
The amount of abuse on that score has been so extreme, and going on for so long, that strong legislation is clearly the only remaining option to at least stem the worst of it.
I fully agree, but it seems like under this legislation it becomes illegal to conduct a business in this manner. If I am fine with trading a certain set of my data for access to a service, I should be able to do so (if the service provides that option, obviously).
> Businesses can, however, offer “financial incentives” for being allowed to collect data.
The change is from opt-out to opt-in.
I hope that's an accurate summary of your view.
I have a few points.
First, I don't think targeted advertising is much more effective than your typical magazine ad, TV commercial, radio ad, or movie trailer. In all of those cases, the advertisers know the demographics of who is consuming that media and can target pretty effectively. And if targeting was far more effective than old school ads, advertisers would pay significantly more for targeted ads, but they don't seem to. CPC for Facebook and Twitter is about the same (~50 cents), despite one allowing for much more fine-grained targeting. And I doubt LinkedIn does better targeting than Facebook, but LinkedIn's CPC is 10x higher.
Second, is this an instrumental value or a terminal value for you? eg: If all advertising were banned (or at least heavily taxed), would you no longer want a ban on companies storing customers information? If so, I'd like to hear why.
Third, what if we could pass laws that caused the benefits of targeted ads to outweigh the downsides? For example: We could ban targeting for politics. Then people could still get ads for more things they want, such as some software that would help them or some new barbershop that opened near them. That seems like a win-win to me.
Lastly, whenever I see an argument between to sides, I pay attention to emotions. In my experience, the less emotional side tends to be the more correct one. If a side mostly engages using disgust, anger, and catastrophizing, I get very suspicious. If I had to pick the more emotional side in this thread, it would definitely be the side that accuses the other of, "violating basic human decency", of being "horribly unethical", and doing "stupid privacy violating shit". On the other side, pretty much everyone against this law seems to think it's mistaken, not evil.
It's not, really.
I object to data about me or my use of my machines being collected without my permission at all. Past that, I object to it being shared with others. What it's used for is beside the point.
Marketing companies come into it simply because they are the most egregious bad actors when it comes to those two points.
> I object to data about me or my use of my machines being collected without my permission at all. Past that, I object to it being shared with others. What it's used for is beside the point.
What can I engage with here? I'm trying to figure out what bad consequences you're worried about, but you seem to have a terminal value that companies shouldn't be allowed to keep information you sent them.
Let's try another tactic: What do you think of casinos that share surveillance photos of card sharps with other casinos? Or wifi hotspots at coffee shops that keep logs of mac addresses to limit abuse? Or news sites that limit non-paying visitors to 3 articles per month? Your statement seems to be so absolute that it forbids all of these legitimate uses.
I do not object to data collection that is technically necessary to provide services. For instance, I don't object to web server logs.
I also don't generally object to sites using data I have willingly provided for their own purposes, as long as they aren't doing things like sharing it with other entities or combining it with data about me that they have obtained with other entities (unless I have given consent, of course). So I have no problem with your wifi hotspot or paywall examples.
Anything beyond that -- which would include your casino example -- requires my express consent. I do think that casinos violate this principle, because they do not inform me of their surveillance before I set foot on their properties. If they did, though, then I would not object.
The essential principle that I operate under is that of informed consent. It's really that simple. Having a relationship with a specific entity carries with it a certain amount of implied consent (web server logs are an example of this) -- but even that data should remain private between me and that entity. Any sharing of it with others requires my express permission. "Sharing with others" includes indirect mechanisms such as using that data to match me with advertisers, even if the raw data itself is not transmitted to others.
Why not just outlaw that?
That said, I am also not arguing against advertising as a funding model. I'm arguing against business models that rely on invading people's privacy.