Ask Slashdot: Should We Have the Option of Treating Google Like a Utility?

eegad writes "I've been thinking a lot about how much information I give to technology companies like Google and Facebook and how I'm not super comfortable with what I even dimly know about how they're handling and selling it. Is it time for major companies like this, who offer arguably utility-like services for free in exchange for info, to start giving customers a choice about how to 'pay' for their service? I'd much rather pony up a monthly fee to access all the Google services I use, for example, and be assured that no tracking or selling of my information is going on. I'm not aware of how much money these companies might make from selling data about a particular individual, but could it possibly be more than the $20 or $30 a month I'd fork over to know that my privacy is a little more secure? Is this a pipe dream, or are there other people who would happily pay for their private use of these services? What kinds of costs or problems could be involved with companies implementing this type of dual business model?"

Comments

hah!

[Artea]

They'd happily take your money, and promptly "lose" your information a few times a year for more.

Re:hah!

[Artea]

By "lose" I mean "share information with a trusted partner" clause in their privacy contract that lets them get away with selling it anyway.

Re:hah!

[stephanruby]

For Gmail and Google Apps, there is Google Apps Premier. You can pay $50 per user a year, you get no advertisements, and you get 25 GB to store your email instead of 9 GB. The only issue is that Google Apps Premier hasn't been rolled out to all the Google Services, and it forces you to juggle multiple accounts which is a pain. And it definitely does not cover Google Search (unless you default to the incognito tab every time, which anybody can do already).

For Android, there are some ROMs that are privacy-oriented. I did try such a ROM, but I quickly reverted. In hindsight, I found that I did want google maps and google navigation to remember the last locations I had searched.

Re: hah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? When you buy an app from an app developer, they need your contact information for payment processing. That's how it's always worked, and it's hardly been a secret.

I just wrote an app that controls lights for people going away on vacation. I will be selling it at a loss, but figure I can make money on the names and addresses.

Re:hah!

[PIBM]

When I had a satellite TV package, the contract forced me to connect the sat box to the phone line. The wording was quite exact, so I wasn't adding the required DSL filter to prevent my DSL from disconnecting and to allow them to transfer information. As I was requesting them to come over and fix my DSL and my satellite (it was putting itself in a degraded no HD channels mode everytime it failed to transfer the info) and I was explicitly refusing to add a DSL filter to the line since it wasn't in the contract, they finally disabled the auto-degrading-if-no-contact and I removed that wire.

But, yeah, at least some companies were really banking on this.

AT&T

[michaelmalak]

How much you would be willing to pay AT&T to ensure they did not give your information to the NSA?

For the analogy-impaired: Google and Facebook might be happy to sell you "privacy", but they're still not going to say "no" when the feds come knocking.

Re:Stop worrying about Google.

[JabberWokky]

Also see http://www.dataliberation.org/ for how to exit.

I'm pretty okay with Google at the start of 2013. Always watch for changing behavior, but that's true for everybody, including yourself.