Slashdot Mirror
Google/Facebook: Do-Not-Track Threatens CA Economy
theodp writes "Google and Facebook are warning legislators of dire consequences if California passes a 'do-not-track' bill. The proposed law would require companies doing online business in the Golden State to offer an 'opt-out' privacy mechanism for consumers. Senate Bill 761 'would create an unnecessary, unenforceable and unconstitutional regulatory burden on Internet commerce,' reads the sky-is-falling protest letter bearing the stamp-of-disapproval from Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Amex, Acxiom, Experian, Allstate, Time-Warner, MPAA, ESA and others. 'The measure would negatively affect consumers who have come to expect rich content and free services through the Internet, and would make them more vulnerable to security threats.'"
Would you really want MPAA to get limitless power to track your every movement? What next, install tracking equipment and video cameras in your home so can MPAA can make sure you aren't making backups own your movies? After all, that would be really good for MPAA and barring such would "unnecessarily burden MPAA and movie studios business".
... show us 14 photos of yourself and we can identify who you are.", and again, "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
It's actually an interesting thing among slashthink. This is one thing Microsoft is doing right. You don't see Microsoft among the privacy invasive companies like MPAA, Time-Warner, Google, Facebook, ESA etc.. That's because they don't want to track your every movement. Microsoft sells you software. You buy it, they're happy, and you don't lose your privacy. Still most here think MS is evil and Google is some kind of white knight. Well, a few quotes.. Eric Schmidt: "We try very hard to look like we're out of control. But in fact the company is very measured. And that's part of our secret.". And Schmidt: "If I look at enough of your messaging and your location, and use artificial intelligence, we can predict where you are going to go
That's not a good name to have associated with the rest. So much for Google not being evil. Maybe they should change their slogan to "Don't be unprofitable."
Lesson two: If it looks like there is a free lunch, think again. You're losing something worth more than cash up front.
The Californian economy is based on this stuff.
On the other hand, it seems strange that the new American economy is based entirely on
-hustling stuff via spam^H^H^H^Hemail marketing
-getting people to click on ads while penalizing sites that ask people to click on ads
-movies
-figuring out who you are/what you've bought so you can buy more of it.
-knowing who your friends are so you can be peer-pressured into buying more stuff.
It just seems that after you've figured out the basics of food production, housing, metals/commodities, transportation, there's nothing left except for group-brainstorming ethereal "value-adds" like the above.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Facebook already has an opt-out privacy mechanism called no using it.
WARNING!!! TROLL POST.
Do not click the link of the parent post or your stomach will suffer!
Google may have said that - but I'm sure they said it in an un-evil voice.
#DeleteChrome
Welcome to the 21st century; living under that rock must have really been tough. These days, the Internet is not about netizens politely sharing information and having vigorous discussions, it is an adversarial game designed to extract the maximum amount of money from you.
Palm trees and 8
'Opt-out' is kind of pointless anyway because it will require a cookie to say you've opted out, which can be used to track you. The only law which would make sense is requiring people to opt-in to being tracked.
I found it interesting who was on the list and who wasn't.
-Experian is but Fair Issac (who has a couple of offices near here) isn't.
-Amex is but Visa, one of the Bay Area's largest employers, isn't.
-Many insurance companies. I know past behavior is important to these companies, but web tracking? I don't know enough to see why this is worth fighting for on their end.
-California Assoc. of Licensed Investigators. Probably the only honest ones on the list. "We want to be able to track you, because, um, we track people. That's what we do."
So I wonder if some of the companies that aren't on here don't care, weren't asked, or actively don't want to be on a list with PR nightmares like the MPAA.
I have said it elsewhere, but...the Internet has now become an adversarial game. "Consumers" do things that corporations like Google do not want either -- "consumers" make use of websites and run up bandwidth, power, and personnel fees, and try to do so without paying anything for it. The corporations thus try to force consumers to provide them with revenue, and have turned to things like tracking your use of the Internet and selling that data to marketers.
The solution will not be found in the law; it will be found be returning to a peer-to-peer Internet and leaving this "consumers getting services from corporations" model behind us. Sadly, a peer-to-peer Internet would require users who took the time to actually learn about their computers, which I doubt we will actually see any time soon.
Palm trees and 8
Lets forget about free services, why do you need to store my info if I pay for your rich content service. I'm more then happy to enter my CC details every time I need to renew your service.
Sony? If my personal info is not stored anywhere how am I at risk to security threats?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
I have said many bad things about Google, and now I add to that Google is officially a bloated and lazy firm, not capable of meaningful innovation. If it were it would not be pulling the 'lost jobs' argument. Such an argument is only made of irrelevant companies such as US auto makers and book publishers.
Google, and to a lesser extent, facbook has made huge sums of money through consumer ignorance. What this is going to require that they share a bit more of those proceeds with the end user. Yes it will effect profits, and conceivably it will effect proficts enough that they will get out of the business, or leave california. Perhaps they can move to a desperate state like mississippi, and perhaps enough employee will follow. The reality is that California knows it has something that exists in few other places, and can enforce a code of conduct on the companies there. Othwise everyone would move 400 miles east to Nevada.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
What you're likely to see if this comes to pass is that people who "opt out" are then bitching that they now have to actually, you know, PAY for things like email, search, social networks, etc, just like in the good 'ol days when GEnie, compuserve, AOL, Prodigy, and your local ISP were charging by the hour for access.
So much for "Don't be evil"?
Pay for something on the Internet? How quaint. Nonsense. People have grown up with the idea that the Internet is free and they aren't about to start paying now. No matter what.
We've spent the last 15 years figuring out ways to get money from people without their knowledge or consent. Google has become very, very good at it. There is no way we are going to return to a model where people willing pay money for services that were previously free. Not going to happen.
The problem with tracking and targeted advertising, as far as I am concerned, is that it makes our 4th amendment rights just a little less meaningful. The government has already started turning to some of these companies to request information that they would otherwise require a subpoena or warrant to obtain, and they are now able to get that information without any court order. On its own that might not seem to be such a terrible thing; the problem is that it makes it easier for the government to pass more laws and imprison more people, which is the sort of thing the constitution is supposed to protect us from.
Another, more philosophical issue is that the Internet was originally envisioned as a peer to peer system, with people around the world communicating with each other and working together. The fact that we are now speaking in terms of "consumers" who seek "services," and that those "services" must be paid for by tracking "consumers" is an indication of the failure of that ancient ideal. Instead of empowering people, the Internet has just reinforced the consumer oriented mindset; rather than solving problems on their own or working with others to find a solution, people just wait for a service that provides the solution to them and never bother to use their own minds.
Palm trees and 8
People use the "cool" stuff because it is there and does not cost money. If there was a monetary charge for the same thing and no one used it, is that the fault of the people or the business offering. Do the people really lose in that situation? The business that does offer what someone wants and people are willing pay for it will be the winner for both groups.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
The problem isn't that stuff isn't free, it's that the costs are purposely hidden.
Dilbert RSS feed
that's one company I'm not investing in any time soon.
Palm trees and 8
The change is from "Netizen" to "Product". You're not the consumer - companies your info is sold to are. You are the product being consumed.
"Everyone wants cool stuff. But nothing is free. It is just basic economics."
Fine then charge me for it. I don't want to give up my privacy.
The usual slimeballs are behind this:
If all those organizations went bust, the world would be a better place. Applying some pain to all of them is a good first step.
Posting anonymously to protect, um, something. But one more slimeball to add to your list is The Bernard Hodes Group, who aggressively use multiple means of tracking people who are applying for jobs--by selling analytics to large employers--to gain value for themselves. What that value is, I do not know for sure, but having worked with them on behalf of shared customers, and having forced them to accept zero PII on any transactions under my control, and seeing their reaction to that I'm 100% sure that a significant portion of the profit model is the reuse and possible resale of that tracking data.
From what we can see out of this is that we are actually in the future pictured by the 80's TV series Max Headroom where corporations rule, "TV" (today the internet) is global and number of viewers is what counts. Now we are just waiting for Edison Carter and Max to appear.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.