[landemva]

1) Those who are willing to pay to get your data

vs

2) Those who think it should be easy and convenient to use services and free to keep that data private

Which group is in fantasy land? Privacy takes work and meaningful trade-offs.

[vacuity]

Well, I'm not getting paid for all (any) of the data collected about me.

How about this: services/sites make it abundantly clear what data they collect (no full page of legalese designed to make people scroll to the bottom). Make it a list of bullet points, maybe. Explain how the data will be used, maybe collapsed by default so it's not overwhelming. Depending on the service, it may be appropriate to notify users about an updated privacy policy. Enforce antitrust and whatnot so Google and co. aren't just dominating the landscape and forcing their way. Also remove dark patterns. This isn't exhaustive, by the way.

Then set a price. And no "here's a constant subscription notice that you can't really block". Guess what happens in my ideal world if a service is found violating the privacy policy.

[freeopinion]

Your first sentence isn't exactly accurate. If you are not receiving a benefit from Facebook, why do you use it? If you don't benefit from your credit card or cellphone or bank, why do you use them? If you don't benefit from the relationship you have with your employer, why do you have that relationship?

All of those parties are collecting data about you. While there is some value to using that data internally, it is obviously valuable as a commodity to be sold to others. You might complain that your cellphone company benefited instead of you. But you gave up your data to somebody for some reason.

You can't complain about not getting invited to this weekend's party if you aren't willing to share your phone number with the organizers. If you weren't willing for them to sell that data later, you should have put them under contract. Of course, they may have responded by charging you admission to the party. If you don't like being charged admission AND getting your data sold, go to a different party or no party at all.

I know, I know. It isn't fair. Parties are a basic human right.

[vacuity]

I'll assume that you're speaking in general, because that last line especially isn't like me.

Sure, I give data to my bank. I expect them to do bank things well, and if they expect action on my part then I'm liable for not doing it. I benefit and so does the bank, because it does investing or whatever. Does that mean the bank should have carte blanche to share my data now? As a pure matter of trust, I have no recourse because I trust(ed) the bank. That's the "scary cracker breaking into the database" kind of trust.

However, I feel I'm entitled to more than that as a citizen of the fine and upstanding US of A. Governments are worthless if they don't protect the people from (or at least try to resolve) getting robbed and whatnot. I view "not getting my data spread to arbitrary parties with possibly only direct consent or knowledge on the surface level" as another thing to be protected from. A cost-benefit analysis breaks down if my benefit is "I get to use these services" and my cost is "I'm literally, financially paying and I'm tracked everywhere and I have a social credit score" and I don't have a feasible alternative.

For parties, perhaps they shouldn't be regulated the same as companies, so I guess I should be prepared for my phone number to be sold if I go. I can still complain if their excuse is dubious.

[landemva]

>> as a citizen of the fine and upstanding US of A.

If you work as W-2 in USA, your employer, or their payroll company, may be sending your payroll data including itemized withholdings to theworknumber. Some employers don't even know the payroll provider is doing this nonsense.

>> I don't have a feasible alternative.

Most people have to work.

The Work Number is good for us, says this university.

https://hrs.uni.edu/theworknumber

[vacuity]

That's deeply unfortunate. Still, I rest my case. There's a difference between using PII for the agreed-upon service and sharing/selling it to third parties for a profit. If a free service can't be sustainable by properly using the information, then it should either charge or be abundantly clear about how data is used, allowing for "right to forget" and whatnot. It's not like a service has the right to exist if the matter comes down to consumers. Given that snooping inside peoples' homes is generally unacceptable, I posit that having access to peoples' searches, browsing history, locations, etc. should also be strictly curtailed unless it is necessary. Naturally that falls on the government to enforce.

[landemva]

>> Then set a price.

How about a cell phone service that would not sell any location data connected to you or your phone usage. Would you be willing to pay over $200/month or less? What would you pay?

I recognize some folks want privacy at no cost to them.

[vacuity]

As far as I can tell, $200/month is ridiculous compared to competitors. If I knew how to enforce "don't be a jerk and clearly overcharge" in law, I'd lay it out right here. It would be fair to require a moderate premium for legitimate privacy-upholding reasons.

[landemva]

Depending on what premium you are willing to pay, there might be a sustainable business. But privacy and cheap probably won't be a sustainable business.

If you think you can force it by law, then choose a good jurisdiction for that strong-arming.

[vacuity]

To create a new business that aims for respecting user privacy, it is indeed a daunting task. However, it is just as well if the likes of Google are made to respect privacy; they won't be worse off in the long run anyways. There could be evaluations after a year or two to see how much really changes. There should be strict measures that enforce privacy-conscious business models and prevent companies from unreasonably retaliating.

On a more general note, it's ridiculous that the status quo is so entrenched to the point where discussions about privacy often feature doomerism and cynicism ad nauseum, as this thread shows. For all the hubbub (in the US, at least) about human rights, about justice, about democracy (however misguided some of these pleas may be), there is a sickening lack of attention when it comes to privacy. When you realize you live in a backwards (literally? figuratively?) world, do you point it out? Will the others merely laugh at you? Is your vision of something different just a worthless hope? I, for one, fervently wish that more people become antagonistic to the idea that privacy is meaningless or not worth fighting for.

[yMEyUyNE1]

I am already paying the TSP for it's service and providing the data for it's functioning. So what right does it have to share it or use it without my permission for some different business purpose? Just like the other comment that if I share my data with bank, it is for providing banking service. The bank cannot turn around and use it for some different business purposes.

We are not talking about the free service providers like google or meta, right?