[3c0]

the thing is, even if you "own" your data you still need to give it to companies to use their product. unless everyone runs software locally, in which case the majority of the populace needs to learn how to use devices rather than falling for the trashy "itjustworks™" chromebooks and convenience devices that milk them for data profits whilst appearing cheaper and better to integrate into their lives.

especially with google - you cant run services like theirs locally really, and even if you request your data, you cant ever really find out how they use it or what they have done with it. its the illusion of ownership. data isnt ownable. its simply transferable.

[MrJohz]

That's pretty much the whole point of the data ownership concept in the EU, though - force these companies to tell you exactly what they're using, and exactly how they're using it.

I don't really think there's a feasible alternative. Most people don't have the means, time, or knowledge to self-host all of the tools they use, and as a consumer, I can't really tell how a company is going to use the data I give them. In cases like that, the only solution is regulatory structure.

[n4r9]

I guess there's two things going on here. Firstly, whether the company takes the data with your full knowledge and consent. Secondly, whether they use it in a transparent (or at least ethical) manner.

For the first of these, I quite like how on Android now the user has great control over what data is made available to which apps. The app needs to explicitly request access to camera, location, files etc... . You can toggle this on or off at will, and specify that it can only read the data while the app is active. I can imagine having regulation which enforces this type of privacy control for all tech service providers.

The second is much harder, because it's difficult to know what the company is doing behind closed doors. However we can at least check telemetry and demand that it is minimal and anonymised where appropriate. We can also apply much harsher penalties to companies that flout the rules.

Of course, all of this relies on government that acts in the genuine interest of its people and without hands in industry back pockets. We can but hope.

[pierat]

> For the first of these, I quite like how on Android now the user has great control over what data is made available to which apps. The app needs to explicitly request access to camera, location, files etc... . You can toggle this on or off at will, and specify that it can only read the data while the app is active. I can imagine having regulation which enforces this type of privacy control for all tech service providers.

And the Android stock permissions are laughable and a pure joke.

Go look at Xposed Framework, and you'll find ways to unwind every permission, either direct deny, or "make fake data" plugins. There's even fake contact plugins, GPS faker plugins, you name it.

Google only implemented the worst-of-worse deny permissions, because doing a good job would be against their interests.

[n4r9]

I'm sure there are plenty of ways to improve how Android does it, I was just using it as an example that I've had personal experience with. I'm not sure if the ability to make fake data is an essential part of owning one's data, but would be interested to hear arguments for it.

[_chu1]

Maybe the only way to fix this is to use the route you named, make people host locally and make technology harder to use.

[j45]

I’m not sure what is linking the two here for you.

People seem to host their own data locally on their phones just fine