Bad for the digital giants and their shareholders, good for the public.
Silicon Valley has skated by with very little privacy regulation, but the tide is turning.
Silicon Valley has skated by with very little privacy regulation, but the tide is turning.
Most of the technical revolutions in the past decade(s) was brought to us by the giants. Never by the governments.
The most that will happen is more variants of the demented "cookie law" and "Google deletion law".
There needs to be a regulation, because it's not a free market. You cannot just created a new operator because everything is licensed.
It is a brilliant law, but many people still don't understand why so. It has probably done most for privacy than anything else I can think of.
Try implementing it across a global 500 publisher with maybe 60+ major internet property's many of which are built from 3 or 4 CMS's over a decade and it quickly adds up.
Just finding all the pages on a large site to apply the changes to is a non trivial problem.
Those business models are largely an artifact of the dot.com bust and the need to find some way to make "free" pay... they're a recent development, probably not a permanent one, and are not synonymous with Silicon Valley.
For most of it modern incarnation -- say 1970 to present -- Silicon Valley was all about personal computing and democratizing technology. Hopefully it can return to its roots.
OT but I was watching a docu- on Goldman Sachs and found interesting parallels between the rise of the "surveillance" model in the tech sector and the financial sector. They both succeed based upon the successful monetization of customer data. That may be the content of your emails searches in Google's case or a client's trading position in Goldman's but the goal is the same.
Do we know for a fact that Google does not monetize its e-mail data by -- say -- offering insights to traders or hedge funds?
Boy would that ever be valuable.