Slashdot Mirror
Researchers: Mobile Users Will Trade Data For Fun and Profit
itwbennett writes: Even as mobile users become more security and privacy conscious, researchers and other mobile data collectors still to collect user data in order to build products and services. The question: How to get users to give up that data? Researchers at the New Jersey Institute of Technology tested two incentives: gamification and micropayments. The test involved building a campus Wi-Fi coverage map using user data collected from student participants who either played a first-person shooter game or who were paid to complete certain tasks (e.g., taking photos). The game turned out to be a quick and efficient way to build the Wi-Fi coverage map. But data from the micropayments group was found to be "sometimes unreliable, and individuals were trying to trick the system into thinking they had accomplished tasks."
We've figured out how much money you're making off our data, and we see none of it. So all the data you're gathering is stolen.
What? This is not about data caps? nevermind then.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
I am absolutely willing to trade my personal data for fun and/or profit. I figure they'll get it anyway, might as well help them along if I can get something out of it. Only if what I have to trade is worth what I'm getting, though. My personal data is worth way more to an aggregator than it is to me, so I'm happy to sell it to them.
Generally speaking, though, all the *mobile* apps that try to help me sell that data, suck my phone's battery like a cheap robot hooker, and *that's* worth way more to me. So I don't bother with them, which is too bad. (I've tried a couple similar programs for PC use, too. Don't have to worry about battery in that context, of course, but I do have to worry that they won't sporadically bug out and totally go crazy eating all my cpu and/or ram, which they have, so not bothering with those, either.)
Just sticking to *passive* methods of selling my data (i.e. surveys) has been pretty lucrative, though. A little bit more time-consuming, and the data they're getting might not be quite as precise, but it won't interfere with the things I actually *want* to use my laptop and/or phone for.
I'm generally willing to answer survey questions for a fraction of the revenue. So Google Opinion Rewards and Nielsen's TV watching logs are generally ok with me. Market research which doesn't split the value of my opinions with me will generally (but not always) get short shrift. (Note that value doesn't have to be monetary, I'll often give opinions when I think there's a chance of influencing the item in a direction beneficial to me). Passive tracking options which don't give me an option to selectively participate/abstain are DOA as far as I'm concerned (like Verizon Rewards).
Google calls it Ingress.
END OF LINE.
"individuals were trying to trick the system into thinking they had accomplished tasks."
That's always going to be a major hurtle of any such user contributed micro-payment systems, people trying to game the system to make a quick buck without actually contributing anything. Had a roommate in college who had the same mindset, it was back around the Dot-com bubble when companies were throwing money all over the place. Multiple companies trying to figure out what people were interested in were offering individuals some money to install a program on their computer which tracked their mouse movement/clicking in a web browser. You were payed by click ($0.005 or something like that) and he spent time trying to program something that would randomly click the screen without user input. I think he made a little money but then they cut him off, I don't know if they caught him, if they found out most of their data was useless because other users were doing the same, or simply went bust.
*some mobile users will trade data for fun and profit. But not me.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Data transfer does NOT cost money, bandwidth does. The infrastructure to handle x-amount of bandwidth has to be in place in order to handle data transfer. Limiting data transfer is an artificial method to incite people to reduce their overall bandwidth use but you're still bursting over your limits if you don't have the capacity to handle it.
Sales people have been able to convince the populace that they need data transfer and that it is a limited resource while what they need to ask for is data bandwidth which is the resource. You can easily transfer 2GB+ wirelessly on 10-year old tech (1G/2G) in a month, providers should be able to provide at least 1G capacity if they're selling 3/4/5G no?
Look at most colo and datacenters, you buy bandwidth (100Mbps/1Gbps) and in very few (typically low-grade) instances you buy a monthly data package (where you are able to burst to a line speed but should self-limit in order to stay within your bandwidth limits).
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
n/t