Great idea. And one that we must extend to our children as well. In the US almost every school is giving Google children's sex, location, interests and even grades through the "free" Google for education. The cost to use paid and private services is literally pennies a month.
5
DuckDuckGo does not track me or save my browsing info. It's as good as any other search engine if you know how to use one. I've been using it -- and avoiding anything Google -- for years. Try it; you'll like it!
8
One issue I see, and Im not very savvy in this stuff. Is most of what goes on is so behind the scenes of the customer awareness, makes getting this very sound idea pushed forward all the more difficult. Then there is the general public apathy.
In the United Airlines case, and others, those are tangible, we can see and feel it, imagine our feelings. Its a sort of viral emotional sharing. But as for what goes on with "our data"...Im not even sure what's MY data, and not. (outside of SS#, CC#'s, etc.) Im not sure I comprehend what the "digital networks" are that I personally create...as I dont use social media.(unless these Comments are deemed as such) I do buy stuff online, I read (subscribed)to certain blogs, I visit certain other info-sites a lot (exercise,cooking), etc...are they the same?
All I worry about in this digital world is - is my highly personal data (SS#, CC#, and now voter records) secure, and what websites I visit (does a visit to Al-Jazeera show up on some gov't watch list?) is not used against me. And that when I do shop online, my limited purchasing doesnt keep narrowing down my actual choices when I do searches.
In the United Airlines case, and others, those are tangible, we can see and feel it, imagine our feelings. Its a sort of viral emotional sharing. But as for what goes on with "our data"...Im not even sure what's MY data, and not. (outside of SS#, CC#'s, etc.) Im not sure I comprehend what the "digital networks" are that I personally create...as I dont use social media.(unless these Comments are deemed as such) I do buy stuff online, I read (subscribed)to certain blogs, I visit certain other info-sites a lot (exercise,cooking), etc...are they the same?
All I worry about in this digital world is - is my highly personal data (SS#, CC#, and now voter records) secure, and what websites I visit (does a visit to Al-Jazeera show up on some gov't watch list?) is not used against me. And that when I do shop online, my limited purchasing doesnt keep narrowing down my actual choices when I do searches.
1
This is a fantastic idea.
4
Facebook, Google et al are at the forefront of a system I've seen referred to as "surveillance capitalism." Google and the major social networks follow everyone's every move around the internet, whether or not one is using their services at that moment. They know everything about your online life, and pretty much use it as they see fit.
I am sometimes amazed by the number of people I encounter that still don't know this.
And the author's solution to this commodification of private personal data is to enable more players to trade in our data? Is this a joke?
You want to take control of your personal data? Develop and promote cheap and easy to use VPNs. Enable consumers to decide how much data they want to share and at which times. Our culture may have gotten to the point where it thinks it can't live without social media, but the reality is that the interner giants also can't live without our data. We have more power than we think.
I am sometimes amazed by the number of people I encounter that still don't know this.
And the author's solution to this commodification of private personal data is to enable more players to trade in our data? Is this a joke?
You want to take control of your personal data? Develop and promote cheap and easy to use VPNs. Enable consumers to decide how much data they want to share and at which times. Our culture may have gotten to the point where it thinks it can't live without social media, but the reality is that the interner giants also can't live without our data. We have more power than we think.
12
I was so pleased, as a former technology adviser to President Clinton, to read this interesting legal approach to the current controls that Facebook, Google, and other large data collectors impose on users.
The authors are right. Company restrictions on use of data collections and control of said data are both an income source for companies, and monopoly restricting the control of personal data about individuals' own identity.
It is not enough to say that users have a right not to provide information. The entire business model is preventing access to the tool unless you provide the information and are then functionally locked out from changing your usage tool while the company resells, manipulates, and holds on to your information. While providing information and signing up with a social media tool is a choice by the user, preventing removal of the information and the individual's personal connections becomes a form of economic blackmail.
In the day of portable data and with the concept of data privacy, the user's personal information belongs to them! This includes the EU concept that the user must have the right to move the data, remove the data, or control the data. This control by the user is doubly important when the data is used in such a way as to prevent competition in the marketplace.
Let's call on legislators at the state and federal level to put providers of the data and free competition in the driver's seat again.
The authors are right. Company restrictions on use of data collections and control of said data are both an income source for companies, and monopoly restricting the control of personal data about individuals' own identity.
It is not enough to say that users have a right not to provide information. The entire business model is preventing access to the tool unless you provide the information and are then functionally locked out from changing your usage tool while the company resells, manipulates, and holds on to your information. While providing information and signing up with a social media tool is a choice by the user, preventing removal of the information and the individual's personal connections becomes a form of economic blackmail.
In the day of portable data and with the concept of data privacy, the user's personal information belongs to them! This includes the EU concept that the user must have the right to move the data, remove the data, or control the data. This control by the user is doubly important when the data is used in such a way as to prevent competition in the marketplace.
Let's call on legislators at the state and federal level to put providers of the data and free competition in the driver's seat again.
10
In Germany, I understand, where they learned the hard way about the importance of personal privacy, individuals own all of their personal data, and it cannot be sold to third parties without the consumer's written permission. Clearly, I favor such a regime here.
However, in the absence of such a legislative remedy, there are practical options: don't use Facebook. I don't. My social network is extensive, and somehow, breakfast and real conversations with friends in the mornings is ever so much more satisfying than the ersatz experience of "liking" some vacation photo one of them may have happened to post somewhere online.
And don't use Google. I like DuckDuckGo. DuckDuckGo is an Internet search engine that emphasizes protecting searchers' privacy and avoiding the filter bubble of personalized search results. DuckDuckGo distinguishes itself from other search engines by not profiling its users and by deliberately showing all users the same search results for a given search term.
See? Problem fixed.
You're welcome.
However, in the absence of such a legislative remedy, there are practical options: don't use Facebook. I don't. My social network is extensive, and somehow, breakfast and real conversations with friends in the mornings is ever so much more satisfying than the ersatz experience of "liking" some vacation photo one of them may have happened to post somewhere online.
And don't use Google. I like DuckDuckGo. DuckDuckGo is an Internet search engine that emphasizes protecting searchers' privacy and avoiding the filter bubble of personalized search results. DuckDuckGo distinguishes itself from other search engines by not profiling its users and by deliberately showing all users the same search results for a given search term.
See? Problem fixed.
You're welcome.
13
DuckDuckGo rocks. I've been using them forever and they get better every day.
Many people don't realize that their Google search results are personalized, based on their search and buying habits. Even the prices are slanted toward their economic bracket, from what I read.
IF you feel you need to do a Google search, clear your cookies and cache first and close your browser. Then open a new browser and hopefully they won't recognize you. Better yet, have a browser at hand that you normally don't use.
Many people don't realize that their Google search results are personalized, based on their search and buying habits. Even the prices are slanted toward their economic bracket, from what I read.
IF you feel you need to do a Google search, clear your cookies and cache first and close your browser. Then open a new browser and hopefully they won't recognize you. Better yet, have a browser at hand that you normally don't use.
4
Absolutely brilliant. Treat Facebook, Google as UTILITY, must provide 'social graphs' for a prescribed fee based on simple measures: (1) nodes in the graph (2) number of users asked for (3) time duration 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, X-years .... then innovation can be unleashed. Google, Facebook == Utility ... ha ha ... //
5
WOW! No comments yet. Is this idea that new that few "customers" have comments? This idea needs a good propaganda machine behind it.
2
Another reform would be the charge Google a small fee for their search results -- i.e. they pay a small fee to a photographer or writer if their book or photo comes up in a search. This is similar to radio stations paying artosts when their song is played. Courts have given Google rights to display parts of books for free. Give this right back to the creator.
4
Competition is good but there is a bigger problem in using social media.
If you use Facebook and other such social media then there is a file with all relevant information about you that is available to the ‘consultants’ who advise those in the political contest and you will be ‘handled’ in the election period. Obama’s machine did this effectively well first, but now it is S.O.P. for all politicians who can afford it.
What are your costs of that process? Individuality disappears; you are now a category to be managed. You wish to support or protest a particular piece of legislation a value is assigned to your contact and an appropriate response generated without the legislator having ever seen either. When will that side of social media find day light? Or is it too late? Come election look in your ‘mailbox.’
If you use Facebook and other such social media then there is a file with all relevant information about you that is available to the ‘consultants’ who advise those in the political contest and you will be ‘handled’ in the election period. Obama’s machine did this effectively well first, but now it is S.O.P. for all politicians who can afford it.
What are your costs of that process? Individuality disappears; you are now a category to be managed. You wish to support or protest a particular piece of legislation a value is assigned to your contact and an appropriate response generated without the legislator having ever seen either. When will that side of social media find day light? Or is it too late? Come election look in your ‘mailbox.’
3
Competition is good but there is a bigger problem in using social media. If you use Facebook and other such social media then there is a file with all relevant information about you that is available to the ‘consultants’ who advise those in the political contest and you will be ‘handled’ in the election period. Obama’s election machine did this effectively well first, but now it is S.O.P. for all politicians who can afford it.
What are your costs of that process? Individuality disappears; you are now a category to be managed. You wish to support or protest a particular piece of legislation a value is assigned to your contact and an appropriate response generated without the legislator having ever seen either. When will that side of social media find day light? Or is it too late? Come election period look in your ‘mailbox’ it’s customized.
What are your costs of that process? Individuality disappears; you are now a category to be managed. You wish to support or protest a particular piece of legislation a value is assigned to your contact and an appropriate response generated without the legislator having ever seen either. When will that side of social media find day light? Or is it too late? Come election period look in your ‘mailbox’ it’s customized.
1
Excellent idea.
I agree with others who've offered a different, simpler solution: make it a crime to ask for so much damn data in the first place.
You do not and ought never need my SSN for any sort of business. If government cared for privacy, they could let corporations use government generated temporary IDs in those few cases where an e.g. banking identity is actually necessary.
We can make corporations "shred" billing and shipping addresses once used (the browser can Autocomplete the forms with data on the user's computer); but giving the corporation only a "hash" of your address, which they can't identify you with but the Post Office or authorized delivery group can link to a nearby PO box, would be even better. (Sane tax and defense-spending policies can pay to make PO boxes, and many other things, free for all.)
Other than that, we should not glorify "intellectual property", or call it that for that matter. We should end the patent and make inventions the common property of the people, to end "licensing" cartels (like MPEG-LA) freeze-outs (like Hasbro's of Hettinger and her fidget spinner), and encourage, not scare off, invention and software development. Don't allow obviously common words like "Candy" and "Super Heroes" as trademarks, to end cartels for those (like the joint DC+Marvel one). Limit copyrights to a decade—your great-grandson does not have a right to be rich off your work, no matter how much you (or we) love him.
Those make sense. Current policies, not so much.
You do not and ought never need my SSN for any sort of business. If government cared for privacy, they could let corporations use government generated temporary IDs in those few cases where an e.g. banking identity is actually necessary.
We can make corporations "shred" billing and shipping addresses once used (the browser can Autocomplete the forms with data on the user's computer); but giving the corporation only a "hash" of your address, which they can't identify you with but the Post Office or authorized delivery group can link to a nearby PO box, would be even better. (Sane tax and defense-spending policies can pay to make PO boxes, and many other things, free for all.)
Other than that, we should not glorify "intellectual property", or call it that for that matter. We should end the patent and make inventions the common property of the people, to end "licensing" cartels (like MPEG-LA) freeze-outs (like Hasbro's of Hettinger and her fidget spinner), and encourage, not scare off, invention and software development. Don't allow obviously common words like "Candy" and "Super Heroes" as trademarks, to end cartels for those (like the joint DC+Marvel one). Limit copyrights to a decade—your great-grandson does not have a right to be rich off your work, no matter how much you (or we) love him.
Those make sense. Current policies, not so much.
5
"It is sufficient to reassign to each customer the ownership of all the digital connections that she creates . . ."
Your otherwise excellent piece is scarred by this clumsy, ungrammatical assignment of gender. Women were justifiably offended in the past when writers used male gender as a default. Everyone should be equally offended by ANY attempt to assign a default gender today. (And it reads badly, too.) Did you really not have time to write 'his or her?'
Your otherwise excellent piece is scarred by this clumsy, ungrammatical assignment of gender. Women were justifiably offended in the past when writers used male gender as a default. Everyone should be equally offended by ANY attempt to assign a default gender today. (And it reads badly, too.) Did you really not have time to write 'his or her?'
1
"Users are Losers"
As this is Opinion, social media has added very little to our social environment. For me it exaggerates the pettiness in plain view. Google is as complicit - it uses our searches to sell things to us.
But I will be Libertarian about it and say people deserve being fleeced by their ignorance and blind faith. However I would support government PSA's extolling the danger these 'online' systems pose - to Democracy and to people. Congress should pass a law that lets them place PSA's on You Tube and all other public media. People need to be reminded what they are supporting and how their actions affect.
As this is Opinion, social media has added very little to our social environment. For me it exaggerates the pettiness in plain view. Google is as complicit - it uses our searches to sell things to us.
But I will be Libertarian about it and say people deserve being fleeced by their ignorance and blind faith. However I would support government PSA's extolling the danger these 'online' systems pose - to Democracy and to people. Congress should pass a law that lets them place PSA's on You Tube and all other public media. People need to be reminded what they are supporting and how their actions affect.
2
This all sounds good, but what really disturbs me is when I'm no searching or posting and these media still track where I go and what I do. I made some purchases for summer furniture products earlier this year and now all I see are ads for those very products I bought - right down to the model number. Why? I already have them. Why would I need more of them. I realize Google has saved me money by offering free Gmail, but the ads they run on the internet are usually way off base and have nothing to do with what I'm really sending or receiving from friends. But their algorithms scan every damned email and they think they know what I want. Silly.
4
this is not possible in or system in which businesses have more rights than consumers! to contradict this, like they do in the EU is the road to serfdom!!!!
Have some respect for business!
Have some respect for business!
1
I suppose those few who have avoided facebook have the actual answer to this alleged problem. Given all the problems and threats these platforms pose to the well being of our society, I just keep waiting for you all to come to your senses.
I gather it will be a long wait.
I gather it will be a long wait.
1
Interesting idea, but good luck trying to bring it to fruition in the current political-corporate climate.
Just for the authors' information: People don't have to allow the likes of Google to harvest their online browsing habits; good, robust search engines do exist that allow you to search in private. Probably the best two are Ixquick (www.ixquick.com) and DuckDuckGo (www.duckduckgo.com).
Just for the authors' information: People don't have to allow the likes of Google to harvest their online browsing habits; good, robust search engines do exist that allow you to search in private. Probably the best two are Ixquick (www.ixquick.com) and DuckDuckGo (www.duckduckgo.com).
2
Shoshana Zuboff came up with the term "surveillance capitalism" to signify the buying and selling of our personal data for profit.
In the meantime, I would like some apps and extensions that would decipher and display to **me** the same personal data that is being accessed **while** I'm using Facebook, Google, or the NYT. I'd love to see how successful my masking and decoy attempts over the years have been, although I suspect I would probably be disappointed by the accuracy of what They know about me.
In the meantime, I would like some apps and extensions that would decipher and display to **me** the same personal data that is being accessed **while** I'm using Facebook, Google, or the NYT. I'd love to see how successful my masking and decoy attempts over the years have been, although I suspect I would probably be disappointed by the accuracy of what They know about me.
The authors, and most of the posters here so far, miss the actual problem. It is not being a monopoly in personal data that is the problem, it is that it is legal for a third party, without direct and informed consent by me, can take my personal data and make a profit from it.
This problem has been around since the first time anyone bought a client list from a store. Before the Internet crashed into our homes and lives, our mailboxes were stuffed with garbage from people who bought our information without our direct authorization.
It is a tired old canard that business advertising benefits people.
The people it benefits are the sellers not the buyers. I make no profit, gain no value, earn no income, when a Google, Facebook, Clickbank, etc sell my information or aggregate my information for sale.
The legislation we need in the U.S. is that I own my personal information no matter where it is held and to use it I must be paid for each specific use.
The whiners will complain that would be too hard to do, and they lie. Brain surgery is hard, rocket science is hard. Offering me a monetary incentive and tracking my approval of what is acceptable use of my information is a trivial exercise that would not even put a dent in the storage or computing capacity of any marketing company.
This problem has been around since the first time anyone bought a client list from a store. Before the Internet crashed into our homes and lives, our mailboxes were stuffed with garbage from people who bought our information without our direct authorization.
It is a tired old canard that business advertising benefits people.
The people it benefits are the sellers not the buyers. I make no profit, gain no value, earn no income, when a Google, Facebook, Clickbank, etc sell my information or aggregate my information for sale.
The legislation we need in the U.S. is that I own my personal information no matter where it is held and to use it I must be paid for each specific use.
The whiners will complain that would be too hard to do, and they lie. Brain surgery is hard, rocket science is hard. Offering me a monetary incentive and tracking my approval of what is acceptable use of my information is a trivial exercise that would not even put a dent in the storage or computing capacity of any marketing company.
3
"But what can be done?"
My answer is not to join any of these "free" social media sites, then they can't snoop on your every key stroke. Also secure your computer from malware, virus infection, i.e. change your operating systems to one of the many, free, flavors of Linux and get rid of either Microsoft or Apple [make sure you're using an email system not owned by either]. Then you can ad a free tracker blocker [most websites especially the popular ones have multiple tracking sites connected snooping on you] like Ghostery, and a free ad blocker like AdBlock+ and never see an intrusive ad, like on TV, again. Get some tech support, most teens are great at this stuff, if you have problems modifying your system.
Good luck and welcome to internet privacy.
My answer is not to join any of these "free" social media sites, then they can't snoop on your every key stroke. Also secure your computer from malware, virus infection, i.e. change your operating systems to one of the many, free, flavors of Linux and get rid of either Microsoft or Apple [make sure you're using an email system not owned by either]. Then you can ad a free tracker blocker [most websites especially the popular ones have multiple tracking sites connected snooping on you] like Ghostery, and a free ad blocker like AdBlock+ and never see an intrusive ad, like on TV, again. Get some tech support, most teens are great at this stuff, if you have problems modifying your system.
Good luck and welcome to internet privacy.
2
One of the best ways to own your data is NOT to get on web sites like Facebook or Twitter who will gladly share your data to anyone with deep pockets.
I think these websites and their kissing cousins have really lead to the decline in intelligent discussion and thinking. I can't believe some of the things people will post about themselves or others on these sites. They are akin to running around town naked.
I live in a small rural town and I remember some guy was having a spat with his wife, and embarrass her he posted pictures of her naked and other not so nice photos of her. To me this highlights what is wrong with these sites.
I have read that young people have committed suicide for unfriended on Facebook. How did our society get in this condition. How did we come to think that these sites are important in our lives!
I think these websites and their kissing cousins have really lead to the decline in intelligent discussion and thinking. I can't believe some of the things people will post about themselves or others on these sites. They are akin to running around town naked.
I live in a small rural town and I remember some guy was having a spat with his wife, and embarrass her he posted pictures of her naked and other not so nice photos of her. To me this highlights what is wrong with these sites.
I have read that young people have committed suicide for unfriended on Facebook. How did our society get in this condition. How did we come to think that these sites are important in our lives!
2
The concept of “email portability” has been there for quite some time, i.e., many mail platforms allow users to send and receive emails from different accounts on different email platforms. This did not change the marker dominance of google (gmail). Isn’t it likely that the market leaders are providing better services to masses than other lesser known players catering to niche segments and therefore commanding the premium? Furthermore, inviting govt intervention to enforce any such portability on social media or search engine to remove or lessen the market power of the market leaders is likely to create another monopoly of whoever hosts and maintains MyBook.
respectfully disagree. the federal power to break up or limit monopolies has been successfully in the past.
2
Don't suppose it has occurred to the authors that the safest course might be to stay off social media. And there are actually other search engines than Google. Unfortunately, they aren't as well known and thus might not be as immediately accessible. Here's my solution to ensuring maximum privacy. I use my computer for online buying, don't like that but because I have no reliable transportation and no access to adequate grocery or other shopping, I'm stuck. I'm careful to buy only at secure sites and my debit card permits me to place orders without sharing all the data. That leaves email - I tried a couple of alternatives to google and they just didn't work - and my news addiction. I can deal with that last by getting a really cheap computer for following the really depressing news. Finally, no more comments, even at protected sites. That done, all I have to worry about is a presidential commission demanding my private information.
2
Gift cards by Visa or Mastercard can be used for online buying. You can personalize them by going to the gift card's website where you can input your name and address but I found giving your zip code is sufficient for online merchants to accept this type of card. They are not rechargeable however, but that and the small 4 or 5 dollar fee for activation each time is a small price to pay for peace of mind.
COMPETITION Has been one of the most prevalent of lies told by the GOP since the time of Ronnie Ray Gun. The false claims since that time include increased choices, better service and lower prices. LIES! All of them! Take the case of domestic air carriers. They've gone all but monopolistic; prices are up; service is getting worse, if that's possible. For example, the globally broadcast video of a Chinese doctor being dragged bodily from his seat. I'm not holding my breath to see a roll out of a more effective model of competition on the Internet. With personal computers, the PC has got the lion's share of the market with Apple having a nice slice of the pie and Google's Chrome Books an ever growing crumb. The same goes for search engines. There's google. Then again, there's google. And finally there's google. Google dominates the market to the extent that it has changed the English language. Google has gone from being a noun to being a verb, as in, I'll google it. I do think the Europeans have a point in finding google for rigging the game so their own weblinks pop up first. In a perfect world we each would have our own private corporations like Microsoft, Apple and Google. But, alas, living in the world of the Trumpenstein Monster, we must be prepared for more and more imperfections, flaws and outright cockups.
And the place to go from there is for users to get paid for their data, each time it is supplied and each time it is used. This will 1) respect the value of this data 2) reduce these companies margins to something reasonable, and 3) create new income streams in the face of the automation of nearly everything.
5
Again, I am drawn to the works of Heinlein who drew a bright line around public sphere and private sphere behaviors to the point of prosecutors having to prove harm to another individual before a conviction for any law-breaking could be brought. Not harm to the state or non-state entities but actual harm to a living, breathing person. Simplistic? Sure. But thoroughly illustrative.
3
This concept might work well in political science 101, but does nothing to protect people from telephone conglomerates or stock manipulations.
1
Google and Facebook are now almost as powerful as any nation-state that sits on the Security Council of the United Nations, or any member-state that sits on the European Council of the EU.
In some ways they are even more powerful than these states because they are multinational corporations with domestic and foreign policies of their own that do not coincide with the domestic and foreign policies of any of the nearly 200 states in the world.
Therefore, I propose that Google and Facebook be given legal status as "states" and made subject to International Law and the International Court of Justice.
No national government anywhere in the world can control these two Leviathans.
They rule the world with virtual impunity.
The relatively small fine that the EU just leveled against Google is peanuts and will probably be tax-deductible according to US tax law.
These two Leviathans must be forced by the world to play by the rules of International Law, not national or EU law.
I suggest that a special joint committee be formed of the UN Security Council and the European Council to tackle this global problem, a problem as dangerous to the world as global climate change.
I suspect that the US, Russia, China, and the rest of the 200 countries in the world would be more than willing to cooperate enthusiastically on this question.
In some ways they are even more powerful than these states because they are multinational corporations with domestic and foreign policies of their own that do not coincide with the domestic and foreign policies of any of the nearly 200 states in the world.
Therefore, I propose that Google and Facebook be given legal status as "states" and made subject to International Law and the International Court of Justice.
No national government anywhere in the world can control these two Leviathans.
They rule the world with virtual impunity.
The relatively small fine that the EU just leveled against Google is peanuts and will probably be tax-deductible according to US tax law.
These two Leviathans must be forced by the world to play by the rules of International Law, not national or EU law.
I suggest that a special joint committee be formed of the UN Security Council and the European Council to tackle this global problem, a problem as dangerous to the world as global climate change.
I suspect that the US, Russia, China, and the rest of the 200 countries in the world would be more than willing to cooperate enthusiastically on this question.
16
The model of advertisers paying to interrupt our lives and a middle man being able to profit by it is rife with fraud and waste.
Put the power of access firmly into the targets hands and let them control who reaches them in partnership with the online services they use and the quality of both go up.
But first, we need to ensure all have equal access to the internet. Imposing a flat internet sales tax to support universal infrastructure and access should be the first step.
Then allocate value of your advertisers access based on actual purchasing power which is measured by your tax totals.
Put the power of access firmly into the targets hands and let them control who reaches them in partnership with the online services they use and the quality of both go up.
But first, we need to ensure all have equal access to the internet. Imposing a flat internet sales tax to support universal infrastructure and access should be the first step.
Then allocate value of your advertisers access based on actual purchasing power which is measured by your tax totals.
5
The Internet has given to the people the constitutional right of freedom of speech traditionally reserved to the owners of the means of communication. Your approach goes a step further and I commend it.
To me, the key is as you pointed out, legislation. Usually, Europe gets it first because their emphasis lays on protecting the public versus protecting the providers of good and services as we do in the US. Eventually, we get it like forcing AT&T to break up and, unbundle.
This time around it will take more time than usual because we have a disgrace of an Administration and a Congress controlled by abomination with a very low capacity of producing results and much less to make policy.
Issues like this and, regulation of artificial intelligence and its applications are real life priorities but our Congress is too busy leaving millions without health care coverage because their priorities are tax cuts for the very rich and erasing all Obama legacy. At least the White House and the majority in both Chambers are on the same page.
To me, the key is as you pointed out, legislation. Usually, Europe gets it first because their emphasis lays on protecting the public versus protecting the providers of good and services as we do in the US. Eventually, we get it like forcing AT&T to break up and, unbundle.
This time around it will take more time than usual because we have a disgrace of an Administration and a Congress controlled by abomination with a very low capacity of producing results and much less to make policy.
Issues like this and, regulation of artificial intelligence and its applications are real life priorities but our Congress is too busy leaving millions without health care coverage because their priorities are tax cuts for the very rich and erasing all Obama legacy. At least the White House and the majority in both Chambers are on the same page.
19
The authors lost me quickly - because they are mistaken about the lack of search engine alternatives. I've used DuckDuckGo for several years. They do not maintain search history or other data and I get unfiltered results. It's easy to make DDG (or another search tool) your default search tool in your browser's preferences.
Search for Julia Angwin's work on this (I don't know her and just read her work for the first time last month). Solid advice on how individuals can reclaim their data and establish their own chosen boundaries online (advice for teaching kids about online privacy too).
Overall, I find accurate and practical advice far preferable to exhortations to tilt at windmills.
Search for Julia Angwin's work on this (I don't know her and just read her work for the first time last month). Solid advice on how individuals can reclaim their data and establish their own chosen boundaries online (advice for teaching kids about online privacy too).
Overall, I find accurate and practical advice far preferable to exhortations to tilt at windmills.
19
How about simply insisting on a wall between the content of social media and it's display. The monopolistic element in social media is that Google or Facebook own both aspects ... they own my posts andmy comments, my searches and my networking. Preventing online companies from owning both the content and the displaying of that content would allow digital citizens to retain rightful ownership of their content and their online activities. Clearly, this would encourage competition for storage options and for display options, and one's online network would be portable as well.
6
For the most part I don’t use social media. The NY Times and Washington Post websites are the only media sites that I read where I can register a “like” or “recommend” in an article’s comment section. In order to make a comment or register a “like” on any of the other media sites I read, one must have a Facebook account. The Facebook monopoly is quite pernicious in that it appears to be taking almost total control of internet discussions regarding non-Facebook news sites.
40
You can definitely avoid using your Facebook registration for anything else by registering with an e-mail address. However, I find I am forced to log in temporarily with Google to use Disqus on public media sites.
3
My local newspaper recently changed its login policy, requiring FaceBook in order to comment. Since I refuse to join FB because of their data policies, I can no longer comment on local issues. Commenting is a fraction of the quantity it was before the switch. Can I sue the paper for restricting free speech?
4
I think it is extremely unlikely that FAANG and others will ever pay for the private personal information they gather. I believe there should be a means whereby they must pay at least 50% of the money they make by selling that data to other organisations.
I get letters and emails from organisations trying to sell me things. I have never even heard of them before, so they have no possibility of knowing me except having got the data from a company I have contacted. Since that company would not give that data free I should get a fair share of the selling price.
I get letters and emails from organisations trying to sell me things. I have never even heard of them before, so they have no possibility of knowing me except having got the data from a company I have contacted. Since that company would not give that data free I should get a fair share of the selling price.
8
This is a great idea, but corporate interests pretty much own the Republican Congress. Perhaps we can try to work with the EU to get this going? Groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation might also have a useful role.
35
Trademark and copyright law need to be revised to include one's social media content. My email disclaimer threatens legal action should its contents be misused citing the appropriate Federal code and regs applicable in the USA. Do I have the time to pursue such a litigation which so far has not been necessary? One also knows that whenever posting on Fakebook, one's content may be ripped off and used for ad content or other purposes completely without the explicit consent of the poster. That's the schmucky exploitation that trademark and copyright law need to address.
14
US copyright laws are woefully out of date and need to be rewritten so as to allow more information into the public domain faster. Social media is a public forum and comments and other postings should not be copyrighted.
As to social media sites as well as media outlets like NYTimes collecting and using personal data for their financial benefit, well there is no such thing as a free lunch. Giving up all of your personal data to Goggle and Facebook is the price you pay to use their "FREE" services. I pay for NYTimes access and would expect them to NOT sell my data.
The simple solution is to stop using social media if you do not want to pay for it with your data. The right solution would be to allow users to pay a monetary fee and protect their personally generated content from data mining and misuse if they choose.
As to social media sites as well as media outlets like NYTimes collecting and using personal data for their financial benefit, well there is no such thing as a free lunch. Giving up all of your personal data to Goggle and Facebook is the price you pay to use their "FREE" services. I pay for NYTimes access and would expect them to NOT sell my data.
The simple solution is to stop using social media if you do not want to pay for it with your data. The right solution would be to allow users to pay a monetary fee and protect their personally generated content from data mining and misuse if they choose.
12
What is being proposed here is what I have proposed several years ago; a global clearing house for personal data. If Google, Facebook and others who currently monetize your data are forced to "purchase" access to your data at prices set by each individual, only then can the revenue from such data be equitably shared. Create such a clearing house and force the companies to pay you for your data instead of blindly trading your valuable information for the equivalent of a few measly peanuts realized as Giga or Tera Bytes of data storage.
40
Yes. I've always thought that my life and information are worth paying for. If businesses can make money off of me why shouldn't I be able to make money off of them. You want my info, well, pay for it. Can't I copywrite myself?
We should own our personal data, whether it be social media, contact information, or buying habits and be entitled to a share of the advertising and other revenues generated by it's use. The value of databases is based on content. For example, if we and/or our personal credit information are included in a database created by a credit reporting agency, we should receive a share of the revenue generated by its sale and resale. Ball players get paid for getting people to attend games in person or by tuning in on television or other devices. They generate ticket sales and advertising dollars. We also should get paid for helping generate advertising and other forms of revenue. Without our personal data, Google and others would have no businesses.
48
I love you for this article and I would pay to support a lawsuit or campaign based around this.
41
Actually, patent law gives the rights to an invention to the inventor, not the inventor's employer. It is the inventor's employment agreement that transfers those rights to the employer. Odd the authors of a piece on intelligent property would not know that.
56
This an idea in the right direction, but not nearly enough. At issue is an individual's ownership of personal property, identity, and privacy. While ownership of private property, real, legal, or otherwise is deep in Western Capitalist country, as is copyright, the laws fails in this modern age. While Pepsi can copyright the name "Pepsi' why cannot I copyright my name, and digital tacks?
39
The huge neglected issue is that the FAANG have respective monopolies in certain online industries. Monopolies require regulation on behalf of weak consumers. Do we actually agree that FB can have rights to and sell personal data on level playing field? We are being digitally owned by corporations larger than countries who have near global monopolies. We can create other models of social networking like FB without a monopoly; more like an internet of social networking on open source, locally adaptable software platforms. FB became THE monopoly by some very early, aggressive and ethically if not legally questionable methods. Is zuckerberg just an innocent kid? FB now facilitates targeted voter suppression. It profited from the work of Kushners digital operations guided by silicone valley pals from college (Harvard, where the mediocre student got in as his family made a huge donation); right wing globalist, hedge fund billionaire robert mercer, who funded trump, bestowed Bannon/breitbart and Conway, and the help of his nasty online data targeting firm; Putin and his minions in Eastern Europe. Yes, and who else is FB profiting from? It's not just evil material to censor. The rest of the iceberg can't be seen. it's underground silent ad and post buys, targeting you as an individual because you're prone to certain beliefs, and the message can be shaped with such attunement to you, but zero truth value, that's how key slivers of Clinton voters were manipulated and Trump won.
32
We recently became the victims of this hegemony. We have paid a subscription to HomeAway for 13 years, in fact early in its life. Over time it bought VRBO, cyberrental and others we also listed through. Of course our subscription rates went up as well. Now Expedia bought Homeaway and has forced us to use its "employee" model, despite our money and property is at risk. Its model includes instant booking, required 24 hr response, a 3-8% cut of our rent, a fee for renters, search results based on their needs not the searchers, and even their credit card processor who's bad agreement says the transaction is complete even if we don't get the money. I'm not even sure forcing us to one merchant is legal, but who can fight Expedia. Of course the answer is go to a new provider, but anyone significant is now owned by Airbnb, Tripadvisor, or booking.com....at least by checking through page 7 of search results, they have bought all seven pages, how can a competitor be seen even if they have a more appropriate product at a lower price? This is lthe equivalent of GM buying every ad space in a newspaper in the 80's.
23
There are fanatics in every religion and founding a country based on ancient texts obviously has its pros and cons. Orthodox Jews may prefer a theocracy. Women used to be viewed as second class citizens in most religions. Fortunately, in the West, we have moved towards secularism.