|
|
|
|
|
by specialist
2038 days ago
|
|
Hi. Thanks for link. I whole heartedly support repeated radical cashectomies targeting the windfall profits of the data pirates. However... The structure of Canada's carbon dividend serves to disincentivize an undesired behavior. It's a no brainer win/win policy. I cannot see how California's data dividend does the same for our privacy. That (negative) feedback loop is missing. It's an interesting strategy. But I think it needs more work. |
|
We did discuss this and felt that a very deep dive would be needed. (A) It's not an objective no-brainer exactly what behavior you want to disincentivize. (B) The economic impacts/consequences could be huge, so the tradeoff needs to be carefully considered.
One example is Google Maps. Right now it has privacy drawbacks, but it also generates a lot of utility for a lot of people and is relatively freely accessible for individuals. You'd want to be careful about screwing that up. For example, incentivizing Google to switch to a paid access model.
I guess part of what this EFF article is saying is: these decisions are better treated as part of privacy law / human rights, rather than economics...I'd be interested to hear your thoughts!