Slashdot Mirror
Telco CEO: Consumers Have 'Double Standards' Over Data Privacy (thestack.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Despite consumers continuing to criticize corporate attempts at monetising data, they are happily handing over data to major tech companies such as Facebook, according to the head of Telefonica Deutschland, Thorsten Dirks. Dirks argued that there is a double standard among consumers who 'scrutinize any attempt to make money off their data', while at the same time 'handing over data voluntarily to companies such as Google and Facebook.' These firms, he opined, are stealing away business across the very infrastructure that telcos have invested billions in. Calling for a wide debate around data privacy in Germany, Dirks said that he was looking into ways to make money from Telefonica Deutschland's huge store of customer data. One proposition was to leverage the anonymised data of its 44 million mobile subscribers' location and movements to support crowd and traffic control.
When I give personal info to FB or Google or whoever I make the decision to do so, and I know what I've told them. When the telcos vacuum up my info they grab everything without even asking.
fuck the telcos.
What part of "Voluntarily" does this asshole not understand?
I am aware that Google and FB use the data I provide. I am aware that by using their service, I am the product and not the customer. I know what I am handing them.
On the other hand, I am a *CUSTOMER* of the ISP, not the product. I am ***PAYING*** them for the line. I have no idea what data they are harvesting and selling.
If this asshat can't understand the difference, maybe he should just go get some cheese for his whine.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
I PAY my ISP or Cell provider, so I don't expect them to try and make even MORE money off of my data. Google and Facebook are "free" services, and we are well aware of the fact that they are using our data (and act accordingly, if we are concerned)
"anonymised data of its 44 million mobile subscribers' location and movements to support crowd and traffic control." 1.there is no such thing as "anonymised data". All that data is easily anonymised. 2. that makes the second sentence actually read - " personal data of its 44 million mobile subscribers' location and movements to support crowd control." 3. what don't you understand now? The entire developed world is choosing to ignore the potentially sinister implications of the highly personal and detailed dossiers they keep on every individual. They are choosing to do this because the corporations who keep that data want to make money off it and the governments which write the laws know full well the potential to control their populations by analyzing and leveraging that data. This guy's "problem" is the public understands this.
It's rather that you didn't get permission!
Anonymization can't be done on big datasets, and the reason can be found in fingerprint analysis based on information theory: see EFF on fingerprinting.
Call again when I hand over YOUR information to Facebook. Until then your comparison sucks.
What people do with their own information is their own business. If they trade it for ... whatever Facebook offers them, that's THEIR business. Not yours. Likewise, if you hand over YOUR information, it's YOUR business.
If you want to hand over my info, please first go play with something poisonous.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Perhaps instead of it being a double standard, there's a purpose behind it. There's no need to "surrender" either. Services like Facebook (deceptively) provide a service to users to share the information with people they know and "trust". Other companies that monetize the information sell it to God knows who where you're left with custom made spam messages in your inbox promising to fix that ED issue you had years ago. Meanwhile, Aunt Martha is pleased as punch that you have a new fiancé and that the two of you are hitting it off quite nicely. Now, the fact that Facebook and other similar services also monetize your information is not very well known to the general public and their targeted ads are often times ignored (unless you're particularly suckered).
Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
I'm no Facebook fan - but their users willingly put their information on the site.
I don't willingly give information to my Bank/Telco/Doctor/Mechanic/LawnGuy to do with as they please.
All private information sharing should be Opt-In BY LAW.
I have a variety of things. I give some things away, as is my right. If someone comes up and takes a thing from me, even a thing I was going to give away to someone else, I may get upset. This is not a double standard. This is how "things" work.
People actually being allowed to CHOOSE which companies are allowed to use their personal info.
Why is that a bad idea, again?
(Corporate entities that people widely choose to NOT trust with their data, especially ones that most people have no choice but to be customers of, if they want decent broadband Internet, need not answer)
It's about as much as a double standard as rape. Oh sure you fuck any piece of meat that passes your path, but when we decide to take it without permission, that's just a double standard. You're already giving it up to everyone else, what's the difference?
There is one very clear difference in these two situations.
1. When it comes to a Telco, they have my information due to the need for me to provide it pursuant to a contractual agreement for service that was formed between the two of us. I never agreed to, nor desired for them to monetize my data in addition to the money I pay them for the service they provide me.
2. When it comes to Facebook or the like, I am providing my information in exchange for a free service where I am for all intents and purposes the product. They are not being paid by me in any way and I provided them my information freely in exchange for access.
The Telcos want to say that they get to be paid by the customer and then also monetize the data. You don't get both unless there was a very clear understanding of it up front.
more importantly, they are not offering anything in return for that data. Facebook is offering a free social network. Google offers free email, search, maps, etc. What are the telcos offering in exchange for the data they want to collect?
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
the very infrastructure that telcos have invested billions in
That telcos financed using subscriber fees and government subsidies. We paid for it, we'll use it as we please.
That with Facebook/Google, you are getting a SERVICE in EXCHANGE for your personal data. Whereas with the Telcos you are EXCHANGING MONEY for a SERVICE over which you expect privacy except during a legally filed and approved wiretapping warrant by a member of law enforcement of good standing. Not that either of those situations actually happens, but that is the idealized belief people are under.
Telco bosses: If you want to get all that personal information, then offer free telephone service in exchange for it. If you will not, then you are recieving your financial compensation directly from the customer and STFU about wanting greater profits and feeling slighted that someone who offers their service for 'free' with the stipulation that they may utilize your personal information in the pursuit of upkeep costs and profit is held to a different metric of acceptable behavior to you who have a monopoly on the communications infrastructure for your region.
Seriously.
I can volunteer what information I wish to whomever I like, for or without reason.
That does not constitute approval for anyone else to know any of it.
Jealous much?
Not only is it about voluntary vs involuntary -- but when I'm on social media, I get to say whatever I'd like people to associate with my name. If you save/store that, great. I often post opinions and commentary that I see no reason to prevent others from archiving away, or even using to try to "profile" who I really am.
What disturbs me is when somebody mines my data without permission, not even giving me anything useful in exchange for it, and gives me no say in editing what they do or don't keep. I may be fine with you knowing, for example, that I'm a libertarian agnostic who likes to listen to rock and alternative music. But I may not want you to track all the details of exactly which grocery items I purchase. (I can't see anything good that would come from tracking the later. Stores might want it to target market coupons or specials to me, but that can be done without getting nearly that granular in what's stored in a database, long-term, and that data has a high potential of getting used against me. For example, some healthcare provider deciding I'm "high risk" of something or order based on how much of a food purchase I made that they deem unhealthy -- not even able to confirm if that purchase was always consumed by me or others.)
People give their information in exchange for the use of services.
If the telco wants to do that, it needs give the option of charging money OR selling customer data.
I already pay my provider for my internet service. They are entitled to nothing more than that.
Facebook and other services like it require no monetary compensation on the part of the consumer, and the service collects data in exchange for using it.
Both services are paid, one with money, one with data. Why do you think you should get both?
There is no "double standard" you fucktard. When you sign up to Google, Facebook and others, you know what sort of data you are sharing and that they'll be leveraging that to make the service profitable. Those services are driven by ad revenue, so it's clear that being free of charge in direct monetary sense, they'll have to do something to continue providing it.
And even then, neither Facebook nor Google are free of scrutiny and complaints on sharing user data. Some of the biggest scandals both companies were involved with had something to do with sharing too much user information.
We already have to pay absurd prices monthly to get telcos mostly horrible service, and now you want to surreptiously sell client data outside contractual obligations to turn even more of a profit? Go f*ck yourself. How about offering free unlimited plans for your clients as long as they are willing to share anonymized data? That would be on par with Google and Facebook.
I pay for Google services with my data. I pay for telecom services with dollars. You don't get both, and in fact, when I pay for enterprise services from Google, I pay in dollars instead of data.
The important difference is ... the free decision.
I can post my full CV here, if i want it. And i still expect slashdot not to publish my mail address.
Just because *I* decide to publish one thing, that doesn't mean OTHERS may decide to publish other (in their opinion less important) things about me.
It's MY data. So i can do whatever i want with it. You cannot.
FB (etc) is a "free" service that you pay for with your privacy. Most people should be aware of that. Many probably are not. I choose not to utilize them.
The "telco" is not a free service. We pay for it already. Many of us have little choice in which one to use as we are only served by one provider. Even where there are multiple providers, if they all do it, then there is still no choice.
The "entitlement" factor is at work. Why does everyone who can somehow get possession of any of your data feel entitled to sell it?
If I put documents into a safe deposit box, should I expect the bank to make copies and sell them?
Guess it paid off never having a Facebook account.
Alas there is still slashdot.
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT