[geofft]

This very same argument would apply to, say, "5% of the price of my dinner goes towards healthcare for the waitstaff. That's something the company wants, not something I want."

There are much better argument for it being spyware, e.g., that it spies. It's not a very strong argument that a thing is bad simply because it helps the provider of the thing.

[gpderetta]

It is not the same argument. Money is fungible, you know exactly what you are paying and the cost to you, how the money is used is not usually your problem [1]. In this case you have no idea how much and with what you are paying. The app could be exfiltrating all kind of information and you have no way of knowing.

[1] although people might have issues with unethical or illegal uses.

[Nicksil]

>This very same argument would apply to, say, "5% of the price of my dinner goes towards healthcare for the waitstaff. That's something the company wants, not something I want."

I'm not sure I follow. If you're paying the same amount in either scenario, how are you adversely affected when a portion of your bill is allocated to a healthcare account?

>There are much better argument for it being spyware, e.g., that it spies. It's not a very strong argument that a thing is bad simply because it helps the provider of the thing.

I'm lost here, as well. Your argument is that I haven't made any arguments stronger than "that it spies"? I agree that stating only "that it spies" would be lacking critical thought and analysis, but my arguments have been more specific. The whole "it spies" assertion, generally speaking, is the basis for the more detailed responses I've submitted to this discussion.

[giantDinosaur]

I certainly don't want 5% of the price of my dinner going to healthcare costs. Don't tell me that's something that actually happens where you live?

[mcpeepants]

Do you expect 100% of the cost of your meal to be the raw ingredients? Surely in (almost?) every single retail or service transaction, part of what you are paying is going towards operational costs, taxes, and yes... employee health insurance.

[paranoidrobot]

Is your objection the 5% or that it's going to healthcare costs?

[marcus_holmes]

I think the objection is that for most of western civilisation, healthcare costs are paid for by taxes not employers

[geofft]

OK, but those taxes are paid by someone (usually business taxes). I am strongly in favor of government-funded healthcare but the number of countries where the government can be funded by, like, drilling oil is very small, so I think my argument stands - some portion of the money I spend on dinner is going not towards things that directly produce my dinner but things that someone else thinks is worthwhile. Even if I agree with it, it's not my decision.

[giantDinosaur]

Structuring something in the interests of what benefits them won't necessarily align with what benefits you, since the actual structure of the relationship matters, as brief regard to my flippant comment on your analogy. It isn't about what % of dinner goes to healthcare - it's (and I was assuming some hideous employer-pays healthcare system) rather about the system which is built to align incentives and benefits in certain ways. That is, I stand to lose in many situations if healthcare is provided directly by the payments of my customers, or whatever. Likewise, with privacy, it isn't just that 'it spies', it's that what it purports to aid me in is likely coincidental. Just like a targeted advertisement actually really benefiting me is effectively irrelevant to the advertiser - it's just nice if our incentives happen to align, for one brief moment. :-)

It isn't so nice when they don't.