Slashdot Mirror


Your Personal Information Is Now the World's Most Valuable Commodity (www.cbc.ca)

"Data is clearly the new oil," says Jonathan Taplin, director emeritus of the USC Annenberg Innovation Lab and the author of Move Fast and Break Things: How Google, Facebook and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy. While oil was the world's most valuable resource, it has been surpassed by data, as evidenced by the five most valuable companies in the world today -- Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft and Google's parent company Alphabet. CBC.ca reports: What "the big five" are selling -- or not selling, as in the case of free services like Google or Facebook -- is access. As we use their platforms, the corporate giants are collecting information about every aspect of our lives, our behavior and our decision-making. All of that data gives them tremendous power. And that power begets more power, and more profit. On one hand, the data can be used to make their tools and services better, which is good for consumers. These companies are able to learn what we want based on the way we use their products, and can adjust them in response to those needs. Access to such sweeping amounts of data also allows these giants to spot trends early and move on them, which sometimes involves buying up a smaller company before it can become a competitive threat. Pasquale points out that Google/Alphabet has been using its power "to bully or take over rivals and adjacent businesses" at a rate of about "one per week since 2010." But it's not just newer or smaller tech companies that are at risk, says Taplin. "When Google and Facebook control 88 per cent of all new internet advertising, the rest of the internet economy, including things like online journalism and music, are starved for resources."

Traditionally, this is where the antitrust regulators would step in, but in the data economy it's not so easy. What we're seeing for the first time is a clash between the concept of the nation state and these global, borderless corporations. A handful of tech giants now surpass the size and power of many governments.

158 comments

  1. They can still be shut down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Corporations do not eclipse the size or the power of any government: governments hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

    1. Re: They can still be shut down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any one of those companies has enough money to buy an invasion of a small country (and win). Do you think the US government would send in our military to defend East Bumfuck from Facebook's private army? Not with Trump in charge.

    2. Re: They can still be shut down by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Any one of those companies has enough money to buy an invasion of a small country (and win).

      Well, there is historical precedent for corporations raising armies and waging war in the own name.

      Do you think the US government would send in our military to defend East Bumfuck from Facebook's private army?

      Maybe not, but Google's navy might stop Facebook's invasion fleet.

    3. Re:They can still be shut down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Try to cross Disney in Orlando. You will find pretty quickly that the government is owned by the company, and not vice versa.

    4. Re: They can still be shut down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL ya cause he is the pro war president unlike Obama who extended 2 wars lied about ending them and the left's favorite thing Obama did was massively extending spying on american's and the world, why you people love the fact America's spying industry has become a Stasi wet dream is beyond me.
      If only we had the most hated candidate america has ever seen who wanted war with Russia.
      Know what Trump is likely the most anti war president since Carter and you people think the opposite is true because reading is hard or is it because you are just a stupid american.

    5. Re: They can still be shut down by sittingnut · · Score: 1

      Any one of those companies has enough money to buy an invasion of a small country (and win).

      invading is one thing. winning is another. usa's military, with most resources, is getting bent over and spanked by even afgans, iraqis, etc, with ak47s. given the hysterical snowflake melting that even simple memos caused in places like google(not to mention the day after last election ), i doubt any such western company has the ability to withstand few slaps to several of their employees, let alone the kind of spanking usa military is enduring.

      bubble of too many silly war movies, games, etc(where huge numbers of grunts willing and fearlessly run in to enemy fire and are willing to kill others ) may have blinded westerners, from the fact that it is not that easy to make men willing to die, and make them kill. only a very few are naturally able to do that. and only slightly higher number willing to do that just for money ( and that for a short time at most).
      what matters in wars in the end, what matters when it comes to winning, is motivation and morale that make lots and lots of men willing to sacrifice their lives for a cause. i doubt there are many who are willing to die and kill for google or facebook and their billionaire owners.

      Not with Trump in charge.

      trump if anything is less under the corporate control than others(though they may be beating him down to submission too)

    6. Re: They can still be shut down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "i doubt there are many who are willing to die and kill for google or facebook and their billionaire owners. "

      To fix that, like government, they can also use mercenaries.

    7. Re: They can still be shut down by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Another historical precedent :-
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Anyway, these moderen companies don't need to use armed force. They have found ways of making people surrender happily.

    8. Re: They can still be shut down by sittingnut · · Score: 1

      mercenaries(limited in time and numbers to start with) wont willingly die in large numbers. as such mercenaries will not win wars against motivated enemies willing to do anything for nothing. as government is finding out.

    9. Re: They can still be shut down by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Even when they are not happy their ability their ability to organize democratically is destroyed through multiculturalism.

      When the bread and circuses fail, they've got neighbours to fight before foreign interests.

    10. Re: They can still be shut down by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Any one of those companies has enough money to buy an invasion of a small country (and win). Do you think the US government would send in our military to defend East Bumfuck from Facebook's private army? Not with Trump in charge.

      There's a reason you don't bring a knife to a gunfight, so let's dispense with the asinine comparisons already with Facebook vs. the US Military/Government, which is not some "small country".

      These companies enjoy many benefits and abuses of power as a United States corporation. It's probably best to not ever bite the hand that feeds them.

    11. Re: They can still be shut down by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure that won't change. Look at the divisions caused by brand loyalty. Now, push us an arbitrary number of generations into the future. We've already got people being shot defending their convenience store in an armed robbery.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    12. Re: They can still be shut down by sittingnut · · Score: 1

      We've already got people being shot defending their convenience store in an armed robbery.

      most people in robbery situations give in to robbers(wisely too).
      to be technical, relevant significant number here is the number of people killed defending against robbery as a percentage of all robberies involving possible defenders. that is a very small percentage.

      as i said there are few people who are naturally predisposed die and kill. but to fight a war effectively, there needs to be tens of thousands willing to do that while doing low level jobs.

      as for brand loyalty, unless what they want to die for defines who they are in a deep fundamental level ( as with nationalism , religion, etc ) it wont have the same effect. only brands that even come close are sports teams, and only a very few people get violent for that, even they run away at significant opposition.

      i don't get what generations has to do with it , but most tech corps are less than generation old, wont last long. and old corporates, that last tend usually to generate opposite of loyalty.

    13. Re: They can still be shut down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have that backwards. Trump is the human embodiment of corporatism. He has given them literally everything they want, if you haven't noticed.

  2. RUN TO THE HILLS! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apt.

    God is angry, Texas. Repent.

  3. I'm going to start surfing incognito by darthsilun · · Score: 1

    Through a VPN.

    Good luck Google figuring out who I am.

    When you start sending me a check every month for my percentage – I'll take 75% thanks – then I'll rethink

    1. Re:I'm going to start surfing incognito by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming the VPN software isn't ratting you out.

    2. Re:I'm going to start surfing incognito by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      2 words. Browser fingerprinting.

    3. Re:I'm going to start surfing incognito by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So much this. De-anonymization techniques are more powerful now than most people know. You can only defeat some of them by disabling features that most web sites require for basic functionality, which breaks much of the internet.

      Also tying your separate identities together across multiple devices is huge business.

    4. Re:I'm going to start surfing incognito by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also tying your separate identities together across multiple devices is huge business.

      Imagine an app that quickly and easily created a random and convincing fake identity for each new transaction where such information was required. It could offer an option to save a specific identity for use with specific recurring transactions, as needed, but the default would be random per transaction. The reason most people don't do this right now is that it's not terribly convenient or spontaneous and requires organization and thinking ahead. Software agents could remove much of that friction and make using fake identities on a regular basis both more convincing and more practical.

    5. Re: I'm going to start surfing incognito by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      There are a huge amount of various data collectors on the web tracking you. You can't evade them all but you can at least make it harder for them.

      Add to it all chains that pester you about membership all the time. That's also part of big data.

      The problem is that big data results in shops becoming more and more bland and longevity of product lines ends so you can't find a replacement for that perfect toolbox you found 5 years ago. Even things as simple as screws poses a problem, which may lead you to get different look on stuff you make over time.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    6. Re: I'm going to start surfing incognito by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      You would need a completely different web browser for each site you visit. Running in sandboxes.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    7. Re: I'm going to start surfing incognito by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Build it, and they will download.

    8. Re: I'm going to start surfing incognito by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that Browser Fingerprinting is now a thing â" basically, they can identify you based on browser plugins, system fonts, canvas rendering, graphics card, and any other info your browser is leaking. Sadly, the more you try to avoid tracking by installing plugins and configuring your browser, the more unique your fingerprint gets.

    9. Re: I'm going to start surfing incognito by newbie_fantod · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't a different browser profile for each task be enough.

    10. Re: I'm going to start surfing incognito by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poison their well.

    11. Re: I'm going to start surfing incognito by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No - the behaviour of the browser is a common piece of fingerprinting.

    12. Re: I'm going to start surfing incognito by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nope. sorry.

      there are many ways to 'fingerprint' a browser client, especially if you allow scripts to run. 'cookies' are just the easiest way.

      https://nakedsecurity.sophos.c...
      https://arstechnica.com/inform...

      and, if you're on mobile, you're might be fucked regardless. your provider may be inserting unique guid into http requests.

      http://thehackernews.com/2014/...

    13. Re:I'm going to start surfing incognito by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Its never going to happen. Our devices are now designed specifically to detect what the human is doing. You know the face scanning 'windows hello' login system? Its EXPRESSLY designed to ensure a human is operating the machine and not automation. Its a way of Microsoft knowing for sure a human is there and is ready to accept new ads.

      --
      Good-bye
    14. Re:I'm going to start surfing incognito by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > Through a VPN.

      > Good luck Google figuring out who I am.

      The cookies are a pretty good giveaway. So is "Location Data" gathered by various Google apps and Google sharing apps on your cell phone and wifi-based devices, even without GPS information.

    15. Re:I'm going to start surfing incognito by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      For people who frequently post text add linguistic fingerprinting and coincidence detection (ie. you discuss the same subjects in different places in the same contexts/timeframe).

      AI won't be able to drive a car any time soon, but associating the identity of a frequent forum poster across multiple forums is pretty easy for them.

    16. Re: I'm going to start surfing incognito by newbie_fantod · · Score: 1

      Wish I still had that mod-point from this morning. Those were 3 good articles.

      BTW, Panopticlick said my browser fingerprint was unique among the 593,543 tested so far! Time to make some changes and send a donation to the EFF.

  4. No, it's not by mveloso · · Score: 1

    Three of five sell things. The other two sell access to you.

    Data isn't as important as pundits would like to believe.

    1. Re:No, it's not by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 5, Funny

      Data isn't as important as pundits would like to believe.

      Well he did save Picard's life.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re: No, it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, my proof:
      If my data is so valuable, why am I not being compensated for it?

      The average person cannot do big data things so it's pointless to clammer on about new minimum wage job creation. Which will be the best an average person can get out of this fake industry.

      It isn't your or my data that is valuable, it's the aggregation and sorting into relevant categories with a ton of data that is valuable. Purely a rich people's game to make their money get more money. It doesn't work unless you start with a lot.

    3. Re:No, it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's like saying the internet isn't valuable because you don't buy things directly from the internet. Personal info is valuable because it's a general-purpose commodity that enables corporations to persuade you to give them your money in much more efficient and effective (and manipulative) ways than they ever could before.

      Advertising isn't a trillion-dollar global industry because it doesn't work.

    4. Re: No, it's not by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Informative

      I agree, my proof:
      If my data is so valuable, why am I not being compensated for it?

      You are. You receive free services on sites that offer social networks, search engines, and other value, in exchange for your participation.

      The catch: you are the product that they sell.

      Some aspects of this new industry are commendable. Finding out what someone likes is a step towards showing them things that they want, and not showing them things they don't -- like a good shopkeeper who knows the customers who patronize her/his business.

      But this also means we need a new kind of consumer advocacy and protection: the kind that makes sure the consumer benefits, and is not harmed, by sharing information. That is not easy to balance, but I think it will be crucial to do in the years to come.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    5. Re: No, it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So then I'm not compensated.

      Taking from me to give to me is always a dick move.

      I also will never even use half of those services.

    6. Re: No, it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's called business.

      And why do you browse the Internet then? How do you intend to compensate the websites who provides content to you?

    7. Re: No, it's not by Whibla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some aspects of this new industry are commendable. Finding out what someone likes is a step towards showing them things that they want...

      Indeed, that does, at first glance seem commendable. Who would argue against being shown things they want to see?

      ... and not showing them things they don't...

      And thus choice, and more importantly open mindedness, died.

      Now, before you argue "But you didn't want to see it anyway" ask yourself: who decided that?

      And we're not just talking about 'stuff we'd like to buy' here, we're also talking about the news we see, general information about anything and everything, all pre-filtered before we get a chance to make up our minds based on just the facts. Worse, our viewpoint is no longer ours, we don't see all sides of any story, we see everything from a viewpoint these organisations 'think' we want to see it from. Unfortunately reinforcement is 'a thing'.

      And then we find ourselves asking 'searching' questions like: is extremism on the rise?

      You are. You receive free services on sites that offer social networks, search engines, and other value, in exchange for your participation.

      The catch: you are the product that they sell.

      In this however you are, in my opinion, absolutely correct. In and of itself I'm not sure this is a bad bargain either.

      It's what various companies are doing with that information, the influences they are having on our lives, that's bad.

    8. Re: No, it's not by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Why should any random asshat running a website expect to be compensated? It used to be the case -- before the sociopathic marketing droids invaded -- that people put up websites because they wanted to, not because they expected to profit. And the Internet was better that way.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    9. Re: No, it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Finding out what someone likes is a step towards showing them things that they want

      Right, but what if I don't like being badgered to buy things?

    10. Re: No, it's not by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It used to be the case -- before the sociopathic marketing droids invaded -- that people put up websites because they wanted to, not because they expected to profit. And the Internet was better that way.

      It was better in some ways, anyway. If you were looking for a specific piece of information that you knew existed, and you knew something about it, you could find it pretty quickly. But if you were looking for new information, that was often very difficult. And whole classes of service which are now very popular didn't exist at all, like video streaming. There's also several orders of magnitude more content on the internet now.

      There were definitely things to like about the pre-commerce internet, but there are also things which have improved.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re: No, it's not by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      >How do you intend to compensate the websites who provides content to you? I dont. If that content can only exist because of ads, its shitty content and i dont need it, nor does anyone deserve to be paid for it. Advertising revenue right now is straight up about abusing the user as much as possible. Why do you defend it?

      --
      Good-bye
    12. Re:No, it's not by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Advertising isn't a trillion-dollar global industry because it doesn't work.

      Nice double negative. It does work for the advertising agencies. They are paid the $trillions by manufacturing corporations (or by middlemen down the line from them like importers). However the manufactures & co are wasting huge amounts of money - because the Ad industry is good at talking them out of it.

      Suppose I want to buy a car. Among others, Ford and Fiat, say, are both advertising against each other. However much one is spending, and it is huge, and how "effective" it is, it is levelled by the other. So their money is for nothing, they are in a pointless arms race.

      Now I don't need ads to be told of the existence of Ford or Fiat. Their badges are on their cars everywhere (I've no issue with that) and have been since great-grandad was sat on a pottie. If car makers did not advertise at all people would still buy one or other of their cars. I would choose on the basis of reviews, but even if I did it on the basis of adverts it would mean that the other company's ad money was wasted on me - and multiply that by everyone else who buys a car. Even if one brand's ads are "successful", it means the rival brand's ad money is wasted.

      I don't know anyone who buys a car because they saw an advert. They buy one because they replace it every two or three years, frightened of an older car breaking down, or because they have an older car that has broken down, or because they have a change of need (new job needs a car commute).

      One day the manufacturers might realise this waste of money, I hope, and end the massive useless "tax" on things that is advertising expenditure. Until then the Ad companies are laughing at our expense and the gullibility of manufacturers.

    13. Re: No, it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know man. I'm pretty sure porn websites always wanted your money.

    14. Re: No, it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are. You receive free services on sites that offer social networks, search engines, and other value, in exchange for your participation.

      What's the amount of money changing hands? lmgtfy says $569.62 * 32.6% per person-year in 2015, so all digital advertising is $15/mo.

      How about I just pay it and everyone leaves me the fuck alone?

      There will be some trick to get the incentives right because the $15 will have to be spread around, presumably by Google, and they'll have to take their cut, and they'll have to collect data to do that. And without a second careful decision we won't escape the toxic trend of maximizing "engagement" instead of "time well-spent" which would be a missed opportunity. But at least all this "you're either paying for the product or you are the product" doomsaying could go away for $15/mo.

      Google's founders support this option. They never liked ads, since the beginning, according to _In The Plex_, a book by Steven Levy about the rise of Google's cult in 1997. Something else is blocking that option from becoming reality. We already had a launch of Google Contributor which let users bid in ad auctions for their own ads, to show a cat picture in the slot instead of an ad, but it was so watered down and incomplete that it fizzled.

      I think there is a class of Mandarins pushing ads around who don't want to become obsolete. Capitalism is being sabotaged by low-level bureaucrats' obfuscations. It's simply not true that personal data is "the most valuable commodity." People spend more on soft drinks than their entire personal ad budget, and much more than their digital advertising budget.

    15. Re: No, it's not by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Excellent points. Thanks for your reply.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    16. Re: No, it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally reject this new "industry" in it's entirety. Sorry, but human society requires the notion of privacy to function correctly. Anything that removes the notion of privacy from society, is fundamentally damaging it, and should not be tolerated.

      As for your new kind of "consumer protection", there can be no such thing with this industry. The very people you seek to protect consumers from, will find out about the people's decisions before they even act on them because of this new "industry". As such it's not possible for those consumers, or indeed anyone, to act against them. They'll know in advance, and will have the resources to counter the people's actions before the people even begin to act.

      This "industry" has gained the power to govern through constant invasion of people's lives, and the massive amount of money they've gained while doing so. It's no wonder why they want the same treatment level of normal governments. (See also TPP and NAFTA 2.0's international tribunals where courts weigh the corporation's desire to profit against a government's legislated laws, and decide which is "right".) They already have the ability to shape policy (bought and paid for politicians), force unfavorable terms on people (EULAs and forced aberration agreements.), and they control what is and isn't allowed to succeed. (They directly control the market, by choosing what products, at what price, will make it to store shelves. Something that a normal government is only capable of doing if it practices direct control over private industry.)

      If this is the internet, and world, of tomorrow, I'd rather bring back the old BBSes than give what amounts to government control of my life via constant invasion of privacy, to a bunch of unaccountable, faceless, and unelected, "money before people" worshipers.

    17. Re: No, it's not by KGIII · · Score: 1

      No. It was not better that way.

      Things that were not better in the past:

      Porn.
      Computers.
      Internet.
      Cars.
      Food.
      Shopping.
      Clothing.
      Jobs.
      Travel.
      Government.
      People.
      Health.
      Communication.
      Weed.
      Beer.
      Wine.
      Bicycles.

      I can go on, but that should be enough.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    18. Re: No, it's not by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Yet, here you are on a site supported by ads. Perhaps you should leave in order to be morally consistent.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    19. Re: No, it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you check how this site started. Before they sold out it was ad free, they only added ads to make the site sellable.

    20. Re: No, it's not by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Up until last year, Slashdot considered my contributions (by maintaining a high karma score) as payment enough and allowed me to disable ads with a checkbox.

      --
      Good-bye
    21. Re: No, it's not by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      You're mistaken; you've volunteered for it by using these services, which are not likely to be critical to your mere survival. If you're not using the services anyways, what's the point of saying all that?

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    22. Re: No, it's not by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That's well and good, but I'm not sure what that has to do with today?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    23. Re:No, it's not by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Something can be a tiny minority of the total market but still be the "most valuable" single thing. If you have 298 items at 0.3% value and one thing .6% it's double the size of its competition but still small relatively speaking. It is a bit misleading I think on the headline. It makes it sound like data is now 50%+ of the commodity market which would be silly since spending 51% of the economy on the data to sell 49% of goods and services would be bad advertising spending even if the goods and services could be provided for free. :D

  5. Your individual worth... by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

    ... to them is next to nothing; even when great swaths of the tech community manage to boycott/complain, they know it's just a drop in the bucket. All they have to do is take minimal pains to marginalize our concerns in the eyes of Joe Blow and they've all but won.

    --
    There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    1. Re:Your individual worth... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      even when great swaths of the tech community manage to boycott/complain

      A tiny sliver of the tech community complains and even fewer boycott.

      Google tracks me. In exchange I get a really nice search engine, free email, free cloud storage, a great browser, and a full suite of office applications. I also see more interesting ads that are at least somewhat correlated with my interests. Why should I complain?

    2. Re:Your individual worth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that's what you choose you've nothing to complain about. But what of the rest who haven't chosen this, when even not using google facebook services doesn't save you from their data slurp. That's when we have every reason and right to complain.

    3. Re: Your individual worth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've chosen this at the very moment when you visit a website which exists because they get revenue from the ad which was shown to you.

    4. Re: Your individual worth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you've mistaken the host for the user. These tracking scripts have no business existing, let alone tracking peoplo who don't use those services. It's slimy and reeks of filthy greed. The user deserves complete control over their computer, and their browser. Since corporations don't take privacy seriously enough, we should force them to respect the rights of others.

    5. Re: Your individual worth... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      In the past year, I've tried to do more browsing on a tablet. I also have no apps installed and block no ads. I mostly want to see what others see, and try this mobile revolution out. I also don't buy much online.

      In this entire time, I've seen very few ads that make sense. I see ads for cars, some of those kinda make sense but I'm definitely not in the market for a new Toyota - I drive a bespoke BMW as my daily driver.

      I do see ads for a company that sells barn doors. That's kinda appropriate but the barns already have doors and I'm more a gentleman farmer. I have chickens, not cows.

      I see ads for nice leather saddlebags and messenger bags. I already own some from that company and have just recommended them. I've never bought any online. I doubt I will.

      I did see an ad, just once, for a green and yellow tractor company. My tractor is orange. My skidder is green and yellow. I'm not going to buy a green and yellow tractor. The site had no wood harvesting equipment.

      In this period, I've not seen an ad for fishing supplies. I'd probably check that out. I've not seen any ads for outdoors gear, snowmobiles, ATVs, or quality musical instruments. I have seen ads to finance at a guitar store. I'm pretty sure I don't need to finance anything.

      The point I'm reaching for is that for all the tracking, profiling, and data aggregation they do - they seem to suck at it. I'm retired. I don't need B2B, SaaS, or productivity apps and customer retention tools. I sure as hell don't need a bra, free for a month oddly enough, but I have seen that ad a dozen times. I am not even blocking anything at the router. I'm completely unblocked. I log into my accounts and stay logged in. Yet, they think I need a bra.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  6. -1, overrated by swell · · Score: 0

    Data gathering, like self-driving cars, is mostly hype. Buyers of advertising hope it is valid, but I don't see evidence that the data produces cost effective profits for them. The data is dirty to the point of being nearly useless.

    Additionally, you can be certain that their data about you, as an individual, is largely in error. Just as the Annual Credit Reports are full of errors, and the No Fly List is full of errors, they just can't assemble their data coherently yet. If ever. They assume, for instance that your IP address is only used by you. That is until they find you purchasing women's wear, infant and adult diapers and men's motorcycle boots. How can they parse that information into a statistically valid conclusion?

    It's safe to say that we can easily confuse all but the most dedicated trackers. Most users do without even trying.

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
    1. Re: -1, overrated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Data gathering, like self-driving cars, is mostly hype. Buyers of advertising hope it is valid, but I don't see evidence that the data produces cost effective profits for them. The data is dirty to the point of being nearly useless.

      Additionally, you can be certain that their data about you, as an individual, is largely in error. Just as the Annual Credit Reports are full of errors, and the No Fly List is full of errors, they just can't assemble their data coherently yet. If ever. They assume, for instance that your IP address is only used by you. That is until they find you purchasing women's wear, infant and adult diapers and men's motorcycle boots. How can they parse that information into a statistically valid conclusion?

      It's safe to say that we can easily confuse all but the most dedicated trackers. Most users do without even trying.

      I think you are close to the truth here. The data really isn't that valuable, but since it's mostly advertisers who are after it, there should be no surprise that they are wrong or lying about the value of the data.
      I don't particularly care about the data on me that everyone is supposedly so excited about. I can't imagine what they could do with that data that would affect me in any way, except in some crazy conspiracy use like framing me for a crime or something.
      Otherwise have at it, just try to advertise or market to me. I don't view ads or marketing material for much of anything. I've done a pretty remarkable job of removing advertisements from my life and it's wonderful.

    2. Re: -1, overrated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just keep telling yourself that. Look around in your home, cabinets, closets you hair.

      Advertising doesn't work, propaganda doesn't work and there is no way anyone could ever influence your thinking....

      Sold.

    3. Re: -1, overrated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just keep telling yourself that. There is a reason why we don't see small businesses and gadgets made by companies made by 10-100 employees. They either get bought up by one of the big players, or just squashed underfoot, be it vague patent litigation that is served in the court (and country) of the plaintiff's choice to having local governments actively ban the product sold.

    4. Re: -1, overrated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we really can't. Its not just your online shopping habits, its the data they trade and sell to each other, the data they get from other sources, etc. that all add up to "Household of married male and female with 1 child, a dog, and 2 vehicles." Data is not the new oil, its a beast far different and much more pervasive. If it was crap and useless, Google and the rest would have failed, instead they are on top and not likely to go anywhere without regulation forcing them to fall.

      The games you play, the websites you sign up for, the places you try to make bullshit accounts just to get in and read a forum or view some titties, they all do track back to you, the wheat and chaff, and they pick it apart quite easily. We see stories every single day on Slashdot about "researchers de-anonymize data from X source", so how can you possibly believe they aren't quite capable of building a very accurate representation of your household unless you ARE paranoid enough to lie at every possible turn and so is everyone living with you?

      The data harvest at every step is broken down, so rather than Google getting all the raw data and having to parse it all, they get targeted data from many sources and then collate it together, parse it, and develop a picture from that. Even though they are jealous and guard it, they still trade scrubbed versions back and forth, keeping what they want most to themselves and passing the rest along. Nothing is sacred, nothing is safe, even your bank is doing it if you read their T's & C's close enough. They sell to in-house business units and select 3rd parties... who then sell it on to others. YOUR BANK DOES THIS! All the credit card companies, Amazon, Walmart, McDonald's, convenience store chains, every grocery store with a club card.... anywhere you exchange money for goods does it, and they definitely have your very real name and possibly your phone number, a valid email address, a valid mailing address, etc. The point is, they log it all. Everything. And then sell it around. To everyone. There is little invalid in the sales data and that is the important stuff. That tells them who you are, where you live, if you're married, divorced, widowed, have kids, adopted, have medical issues, what your income level is, what life events are happening for you... its far worse than 1984 ever predicted, but its the corporations doing it instead of the government.

      Pass it off as paranoid thinking if you wish, but you frequent a site daily that gives you first-hand knowledge of how little anonymity or privacy we have online, and how it impacts people directly, with stories like Facebook connecting a man with a distant relative despite having no visible connections they could find together (today), or maybe more famously the one about Target knowing a man's daughter was pregnant before she did (which was really before she told him, but honestly...still valid). We see how pervasive and invasive it is right now, and you want to wait until they get better at it before trying to stop it or at least put into place some kind of safeguards?

      On that note though, since they can and do build these profiles, maybe we should turn to them for protection from today's nastiest criminals: identity thieves. If someone stole your identity and began trying to get loans and credit cards, wouldn't it be nice for your identity to be tied back to you by the companies and the loans and cards refused, instead of having your credit destroyed, almost no chance the thief gets caught, and years of dealing with the headache? I mean, the guy who was CEO of Lifelock, his own company couldn't prevent people using his SSN to get shit done, because the data isn't actually pervasive enough yet, too many credit agents are still unconnected, too many little loopholes still exist to exploit. Many Big Data ought to do something about that, since we all hate the Government and won't let them, but happily tell Facebook about what color the stains in our underwear were this morning!

    5. Re: -1, overrated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just keep telling yourself that. Uhh...
      Sold!

    6. Re: -1, overrated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are tons of things created by small companies.

    7. Re: -1, overrated by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      It does not necessarily matter that the data is dirty. It only matters that globs of money can be spent a tiny bit more efficiently than the crappy way it was spent 20 years ago, to make this new kind of advertising exciting...to people who care about advertising.

      For example, big automakers spent a few hundred million a year for advertising. They believe this kind of budget is in the right ballpark based on decades of experience. They are not naive. They do understand that individual advertising efforts within this big budget are flops, but what is going to be a flop is only clear in hindsight.

      So we are literally talking about companies like GM looking at expanding their $350 million ad budget from last year to $360 million this year, and wondering whether to increase their "online" spending from $80 million to $90 million. So the data may be dirty but it could still be money better spent than a few more glossy magazine ads.

    8. Re: -1, overrated by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Data gathering, like self-driving cars, is mostly hype. Buyers of advertising hope it is valid, but I don't see evidence that the data produces cost effective profits for them. The data is dirty to the point of being nearly useless.

      Additionally, you can be certain that their data about you, as an individual, is largely in error. Just as the Annual Credit Reports are full of errors, and the No Fly List is full of errors, they just can't assemble their data coherently yet. If ever. They assume, for instance that your IP address is only used by you. That is until they find you purchasing women's wear, infant and adult diapers and men's motorcycle boots. How can they parse that information into a statistically valid conclusion?

      It's safe to say that we can easily confuse all but the most dedicated trackers. Most users do without even trying.

      Based on your theory, I would expect any minute now the cost of a 30-second Superbowl ad to plummet by 90%, along with most of the demand for commercial advertising and internet ads.

      Yes, we'll be able to shut down our ad blockers any day now, since most data is worthless...

  7. If you want to remain unknown... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just stay out of debt and out of work. You'll be so rich even Google won't find you.

    1. Re:If you want to remain unknown... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      After my parents filed for bankruptcy in the 1970's, they didn't have a credit card for 40 years. When the dealerships were practically giving away cars after the Great Recession in 2010, my father when down to the dealership and inquired about financing to buy a truck. He told the clerk that he didn't have a credit record. She laughed. It took her 20 minutes to confirm that he didn't have a credit record. He paid for half the truck in cash. When he got his first bill the following month, his boss paid the other half. After that, he had a credit record.

    2. Re: If you want to remain unknown... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who gives a fuck?

    3. Re: If you want to remain unknown... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Who gives a fuck?

      Lots more people than should. That's how we wind up with all these cowards all over slashdot

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re: If you want to remain unknown... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Who gives a fuck?

      According to "The Boy Kings of Facebook" by Katherine Losse, a service like Facebook is popular because "people and stories". Same reason for Slashdot. We're all here for the people and the stories. It certainly not for the deep technical discussions that almost never happens around here. You have to go to Reddit for that.

    5. Re: If you want to remain unknown... by ls671 · · Score: 1

      We're all here for the people and the stories.

      False, some are here to post affiliate links, a.k.a. spam.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    6. Re: If you want to remain unknown... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      False, some are here to post affiliate links, a.k.a. spam.

      Which doesn't violate the Slashdot TOS. If you got a problem with that, take it up with management.

    7. Re: If you want to remain unknown... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Direct Amazon link!

      Remember folks, it's cruel to feed the whale, since it will never learn to hunt and feed itself!

  8. Data is clearly the new oil? by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    data ain't doing so good, then.

  9. Posession is nine points of the law by shanen · · Score: 1

    Repeating the obvious seems increasingly pointless, but: Unless we are given control over our personal information, then freedom becomes meaningless. With sufficient personal information about you I can force you or prevent you from doing anything. It's not just the bad stuff that can be used as a sticks to threaten you, but even the good stuff that can be used as carrots to manipulate you. (Check my sig.)

    Easier to make the example clear by personifying it, so: Controlling your personal information means deciding WHERE it is stored, WHO has access to it, WHAT they can do with it, and WHEN they have to erase any working copies. Oh yeah. It also includes knowing WHAT the personal information is.

    As the current system of corporate cancerism (not to be confused with extinct capitalism) has developed, your personal information belongs to any giant corporation that has figured out some way to collect it. Of course that information is incredibly valuable, but the frightening parts are (1) There is no gawd but profit, and Apple, Exxon, Google, and some big banks are profit's prophets, and (2) The highest RoI is bribing cheap politicians to implement "government of the corporations, by the lawyers, for the richest 0.1%".

    Old stuff. New aspect involves how this should interface with your public reputation. I think that PUBLIC information is also being distorted and abused when it could be aggregated and displayed in a way that would (1) Help you understand who you should pay attention to, and (2) Help you become a better person.

    My own focus on (1) is in terms of saving my time. I'd prefer to spend as much as possible with good people. Not only would I prefer not to see people with negative reputations, but I'd actually prefer to filter on a relative basis in terms of people who are clearly much better than me. Unfortunately, in accord with (2), that's not saying much. Too much room for improvement, and it doesn't help to just avoid mirrors.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re: Posession is nine points of the law by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Ferengi rules of acquisition comes to mind.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:Posession is nine points of the law by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Not only would I prefer not to see people with negative reputations, but I'd actually prefer to filter on a relative basis in terms of people who are clearly much better than me.

      You've got a game theory problem there: why would those better people want to see you?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re: Posession is nine points of the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These silly theories don't always apply. Life isn't a game.

    4. Re: Posession is nine points of the law by shanen · · Score: 1

      I never developed a taste for TNG. The holodeck was too much of a cop-out for me. However, I looked at the relevant Wikipedia article, and it sounds like more of Roddenberry's wolfish social commentary disguised in sheepish SF clothing. If so, and as I understand it now, I would approach the analysis from the perspective of healthy greed versus sickness. A certain amount of greed is just driving "the pursuit of happiness", and that's not a bad thing, but when your greed reaches the point that you are willing to hurt or even kill other people, then I think you've become sick--and that is where most of today's so-called Republicans are now. Capitalism as described by Adam Smith was kind of simplistic mapping of the law of the jungle to human society, but there were rules that basically kept most people on the edge of starvation under normal conditions, but that's just the normal and natural state of animals.

      Human beings are capable of doing better. For example, we can create social insurance systems that will try to prevent most old people from starving to death as soon as they lose their competitive edges.

      Or we can do worse, as with a political system where the most cheaply bribed politicians want to remove healthcare from millions of people so they can reduce the taxes of people who are too wealthy to actually notice the difference. Such super-rich and super-greedy people do not have any real problem because there is no solution to their "need" for more money. They will NEVER be satiated precisely because their super-greed is the reason they have become super-rich.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    5. Re:Posession is nine points of the law by shanen · · Score: 1

      Excellent point, and they might not. I don't see that as a real problem, however. The time they don't waste on me is more time that they can spend doing the good things that earned their high reputations.

      I actually feel bothered when I intrude on the attention of such people, even when they reply to my questions in a kind way. Among other time-saving tools, I would like them to use celebrity email systems that would handle routine questions and reactions without consuming any of their valuable time. Again, DAUPR.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    6. Re: Posession is nine points of the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TNG was the best series.

    7. Re:Posession is nine points of the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geeze! Just hire a secretary!

  10. Privacy by tquasar · · Score: 1

    There is no privacy, everything you do is tracked. If you live in a cabin in the woods you will be known by the mail you receive or the web sites you visit. I bought some things from a web store and then got ads from sites offering similar items.

    1. Re:Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Driving cars manually is not hard, especially for short distances (so I don't see why we need self-driving cars). Can they add laws such that people who value their privacy be able to avoid self-driving cars. In such a society you would have two types of car people:

      a) People who trade privacy/freedom to corps and governments in exchange for the convenience and luxury of self-driven cars.
      b) People who hold on to their privacy by driving their cars themselves.

      People should have the right to (b) is they so choose.

    2. Re:Privacy by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Can they add laws such that people who value their privacy be able to avoid self-driving cars.

      The short form is no. And in fact, they're more likely to pass a law that says that all vehicles, automated or not, need to carry a V2V beacon that informs other vehicles of its position, speed, and brake and accelerator pedal states.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. Online privacy is a mirage... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    According to "Chaos Monkeys: Obscene Fortune and Random Failure in Silicon Valley" by Antonio Garcia Martinez, who combined Facebook data with third-party demographic data to determine the identity of a user either logged in or browsing anonymously, there's no such thing as online privacy. And the author ain't sorry for compromising online privacy in this podcast.

    1. Re:Online privacy is a mirage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Direct Amazon link!

      Don't feed Moby Trick, it has to learn to hunt on its own!

    2. Re:Online privacy is a mirage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misspelled Moby-Dick.

      Here is a mnemonic: Moby-Dick Pics

    3. Re:Online privacy is a mirage... by ls671 · · Score: 1

      And the author ain't sorry for compromising online privacy in this podcast

      I guess it's understandable since some ain't sorry for compromising online privacy with amazon affiliate links.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    4. Re:Online privacy is a mirage... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Anybody considering buying that book but not wanting to give an affiliate bonus to creimer can buy this used copy at abebooks.com for $5.46 with $3.99 shipping.

    5. Re:Online privacy is a mirage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, it's Moby Trick cuz the fat piece of shit spends his time tricking people into clicking on his affiliate links and buying his abominable ebooks.

    6. Re:Online privacy is a mirage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you sound bitter, tricky tits

    7. Re:Online privacy is a mirage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you smell sour, creimer

    8. Re:Online privacy is a mirage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, I'll just give you the gist of it:
      Call me Ishmael, yada yada yada...
      I forget the middle 1200 pages.
      Whale is a metaphor for something... The End.

    9. Re:Online privacy is a mirage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't take "third party demographic data". The combination of Akamai's web proxy services and the Akamai hosted cookies from doubleclick.net, provide a centralized repository of such data which cannot be blocked without making many, if not most, web sites completely useless. Other companies like Google and Amazon rely on other technologies, but the Akamai/Doubleclick partnership is definitely unavoidable even with charity and non-government-funded charity work.

    10. Re:Online privacy is a mirage... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      you smell sour, creimer

      That my trolls have trolls is too funny.

    11. Re:Online privacy is a mirage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google is forbidden by FTC consent decree from doing this until 2031. They can't track a user across a login/logout action, and they can't track by IP address.

      It doesn't apply to the rest of the industry. MediaMath runs overnight mapreduces that track households by IP address, even when their IP address changes. They build chains of probably-equivalent addresses into a virtual evercookie.

      And, of course, on phones you can't log out, you can't share them, you can't clear cookies, and they contain multiple burned-in identifiers like phone number, MAC address, and home+work location, so "all too easy." All restrictions on tracking will be moot by 2031 because of consumers' negligence to demand that privacy be built into the platforms they choose to use.

      And the decree doesn't apply to Facebook. They operate under a different consent decree that forbids changes to privacy setting ACL logic and UIs that unintentionally widen sharing, but says nothing about "shadow profiles" a.k.a. logged-out users.

      but back to OP's thesis, seems (1) you can build a huge business without this kind of egregious cowboy tracking, (2) a simple FTC consent decree is enough to eliminate it (though Google is a large company, with a lot to lose, full of sincere people, so an easy target for regulation that doesn't show much about the power of regulation at the long tail).

    12. Re:Online privacy is a mirage... by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      This is Slashdot we're talking about here. It's Trolls all the way down!

    13. Re:Online privacy is a mirage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was all the same AC?

    14. Re:Online privacy is a mirage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That my trolls have trolls is too funny.

      Creimer, it's obvious to anybody reading that these one-liner comments are you posting AC. You even fucked up somewhere along the way and outed yourself, I remember reading the comment, but I'll be damned if I'll spend the 30 seconds of time on you it'd take to dig up the comment.

      You're a liar, and a poor troll.

    15. Re:Online privacy is a mirage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big fleas have little fleas,
      Upon their backs to bite 'em,
      And little fleas have lesser fleas,
      and so, ad infinitum.

      And you, are one very BIG flea.

    16. Re:Online privacy is a mirage... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You even fucked up somewhere along the way and outed yourself, I remember reading the comment, but I'll be damned if I'll spend the 30 seconds of time on you it'd take to dig up the comment.

      That was for the Black Amazon Dot to match my vintage black 2006 MacBook. Don't blame me for your own damn trolls.

    17. Re:Online privacy is a mirage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Direct Amazon link!

      Remember folks, it's cruel to feed the whale, since it will never learn to hunt and feed itself!

  12. Glad I've kept it all to myself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's start the bidding at $1M.... *crickets*

    Yeah I knew this was a bullshit headline

  13. And they are owned by Jews. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What we're seeing for the first time is a clash between the concept of the nation state and these global, borderless corporations. A handful of tech giants now surpass the size and power of many governments."

    This is crucial to understand. Without the realization that these mega corporations are Jewish, any "insight" will be nearly worthless.

  14. SHARE ALL YOUR DATA WITH EVERYONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only way to eliminate the value of your personal information is to share it with everyone. That's how you stick it to the corporations!

    1. Re:SHARE ALL YOUR DATA WITH EVERYONE by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      When a small-minded person attempts to blackmail me, I just tell them to go search my blogs from the last 20+ years. If I haven't written about it, I'll do so immediately. It's very difficult to blackmail someone who is willing to turn whatever the blackmailer thinks is a big deal into a public discussion.

    2. Re:SHARE ALL YOUR DATA WITH EVERYONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would anyone blackmail a nobody? Why do you make it sound like happens often? More of your ego puffery, Moby Trick?

      And if you're that open, why did you get so upset a month ago because people found out "personal" information you ejaculate everywhere given any provocation?

      So you won't mind if I post your phone number here?

    3. Re:SHARE ALL YOUR DATA WITH EVERYONE by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone blackmail a nobody? Why do you make it sound like happens often?

      Check out my blog post, The Blackmail of David Letterman.

      And if you're that open, why did you get so upset a month ago because people found out "personal" information you ejaculate everywhere given any provocation?

      I was unaware that third-party websites had republished my personal information from public documents. I was under the impression that douche bags were going out of their way to find public documents at government websites.

      So you won't mind if I post your phone number here?

      If you want to be a douche bag, be my guest.

    4. Re:SHARE ALL YOUR DATA WITH EVERYONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Check out my blog post,"

      No, I won't. Just tell it here, or stop referring to your imaginary persecution.

      "I was under the impression that douche bags were going out of their way to find public documents at government websites."

      You're really not important enough for that.

      "If you want to be a douche bag, be my guest."

      I won't. Anyone who really wants to find it can just spend .05 seconds on Google and find it too.

    5. Re:SHARE ALL YOUR DATA WITH EVERYONE by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You're really not important enough for that.

      Except that I was falsely accused of threatening to shoot people, fake accounts got deleted for mocking me, and dick pics with my contact info got posted on Russian websites. The douche bags on Slashdot found me important enough to waste their time. Some of this I've documented on my blog, the rest I'm saving for an essay that I'll publish next year.

    6. Re:SHARE ALL YOUR DATA WITH EVERYONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the rest I'm saving for an essay that I'll publish next year"

      Jesus Christ, you poor victim. The world awaits the story of the The First Victim Of The Internet with bated breath! Oh please don't keep us waiting, askance!

    7. Re:SHARE ALL YOUR DATA WITH EVERYONE by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Jesus Christ, you poor victim. The world awaits the story of the The First Victim Of The Internet with bated breath! Oh please don't keep us waiting, askance!

      I'm not a victim. I just have an interesting life that people are willing to pay money to read about.

    8. Re: SHARE ALL YOUR DATA WITH EVERYONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all fun and games when it's someone threatening to expose.

      How many felonies have you ever technically committed?

      If the government decides to open your data container, it not going to be fun and games.

      Just being on the wrong website at the rate things are going could be enough to at a minimum harass an individual.

      Just a bit more time...

    9. Re:SHARE ALL YOUR DATA WITH EVERYONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Share your bank account info and SIN please

    10. Re:SHARE ALL YOUR DATA WITH EVERYONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can't blackmail you if everyone already knows everything about you

    11. Re: SHARE ALL YOUR DATA WITH EVERYONE by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      If the government decides to open your data container, it not going to be fun and games.

      You mean the Chinese? They already got my background file for my security clearance.

    12. Re:SHARE ALL YOUR DATA WITH EVERYONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " I just have an interesting life"

      So does that hobo that sleeps in the #25 bus shelter.

      "that people are willing to pay money to read about."

      Why would they pay when you said "If I haven't written about it, I'll do so immediately" on his shitty blog?

    13. Re: SHARE ALL YOUR DATA WITH EVERYONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, those Chinese don't just want anybody cleaning their storage closets...

    14. Re:SHARE ALL YOUR DATA WITH EVERYONE by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      They can't blackmail you if everyone already knows everything about you

      Small-minded people think they're the only ones who have information that no one else knows about. I'm always happy to throw out a link and tell them to rethink their position. Most of the time they just go away.

    15. Re:SHARE ALL YOUR DATA WITH EVERYONE by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Why would they pay when you said "If I haven't written about it, I'll do so immediately" on his shitty blog?

      The same reason why people buy a book instead of downloading a bootleg PDF of the book.

    16. Re:SHARE ALL YOUR DATA WITH EVERYONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Small-minded people think they're the only ones who have information that no one else knows about.

      All those small-minded PhD candidates.

    17. Re:SHARE ALL YOUR DATA WITH EVERYONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the printed book came first, and people pirate it electronically after. In your case, you write your crap electronically FIRST.

      So how does that apply, Moby Trick?

    18. Re:SHARE ALL YOUR DATA WITH EVERYONE by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      So how does that apply, Moby Trick?

      Different formats. The blog is free. The ebooks are not.

    19. Re:SHARE ALL YOUR DATA WITH EVERYONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Small-minded people...

      Well, at least they have a mind while you have none, you empty head.

    20. Re:SHARE ALL YOUR DATA WITH EVERYONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't expose my real uid - but I just thought I'd point out, you're a real dick, whoever the fuck you are. Why don't you get a fucking life instead of playing out your psychologically damaged diatribe here. You fucking pimple dick moron.

      You're the kind of asshole that needs twice as much toilet paper because of all the shit that spews out of your mouth. You whine and troll as if anyone gives a fuck about what you have to say, but what it says about you is you are a bitter shallow empty vessel excuse for a human being that is about ready for reality to hit you in the face with a serious mental illness. You're showing the signs now so you better sort your shit out.

    21. Re:SHARE ALL YOUR DATA WITH EVERYONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, cuz creimer sure doesn't show any signs of mental illness. Serious weight gain from anti-psychotics? Check. Delusions that people are hacking government databases about him? Check. Delusions about being able to write? Check.

      He won't sleep with you no matter how much you defend the fucker. Why don't you try engaging him in on-topic discussion a few times, maybe you'll understand why he elicits the reactions he does.

    22. Re:SHARE ALL YOUR DATA WITH EVERYONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what does that have to do with your original assertion?

  15. Not the first time by theweatherelectric · · Score: 2

    What we're seeing for the first time is a clash between the concept of the nation state and these global, borderless corporations.

    No, this is not the first time. The East India Company, for example, had immense power at its height.

    1. Re: Not the first time by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

      Franchise war in Demolition Man, Max Headroom, Fahrenheit 451, 1984, Neuromancer, Brave New World, Ferengi invasion - all in one package.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  16. Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AI Big Data Woo Woo by state run media are the New BigFoot Illuminati Alien Hollow Earth Conspiracy.
    To sell washing powder and feminine hygiene products.

  17. Re: Yes yes, truly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A bot on slashdot said it! It must be true!

  18. I'm proud to put a dent into their bullshit via by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

    Ads/script/malware rob speed/security/privacy (bandwidth too).

    Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).

    Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!

    Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirect (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + DNS requestlog tracking & lighten DNS load & resolve faster from local system RAM!

    * Via what u NATIVELY have in the FASTER kernelmode IP stack!

    APK

    P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/

  19. personal ownership of your data by bigtreeman · · Score: 1

    Own your own data.
    Publish your data under license.
    Restrict usage of your data.
    If it is valuable, they will pay you something to use your data.

    --
    Go well
  20. Not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... oil was the world's most valuable resource ...

    Cooking, cleaning and manufacturing can downgrade to coal again. Show me how many data centres can run on off-the-grid solar. Personal data may be valuable but oil is necessary for modern civilization to continue.

  21. own your own data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Music download Mp3 own your own data

  22. Bubble Alert! by ka9dgx · · Score: 1

    I find it very hard to believe that the day to day details of how I barely slide into payday with a dollar left in my wallet can somehow be transformed into wealth by the 1%. Long ago I heard the phrase "physical economy" uttered by Lyndon LaRouche... and it has stuck with me ever since... show me how this information actually results in a widget being manufactured somewhere, and isn't just a bit in a bank account... and I might believe you.

    I make gears for a living... I understand how the value I put in results in productivity elsewhere, in a direct physical way. I have no idea how the details of my poverty can enrich someone else.

    I call BUBBLE! Like sub-prime real estate... and sub-prime auto set to pop next... I think this too shall pop.

  23. Well thank God for China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only country to exclude ALL these companies listed. Guess you can move there to avoid the tracking.

  24. Simple: by garote · · Score: 1

    The power of this information is in aggregate.

    The knowledge that you make gears for $1 each, and buy springs for $2 each, may be useless.
    The knowledge that there are 50,000 people like you, may also be useless.

    But, add the knowledge that there are 50,000 other people making springs for $1 each and paying $2 for gears, and now you can place a bunch of orders, make a deal with a shipping company, sell gears and springs for $1.75 each, and make approximately $70,000 from one round of sales... And you've saved everyone 25 cents and given the shipping company more business.

    All you had was information - and all you did was make some calls.
    Aggregate information, ESPECIALLY when it's exclusive, can be translated almost directly into money. Just takes some lateral thinking.
    Knowledge of what people do, think, want, and feel, is not just another way to find new ways to profit. It is THE ONLY WAY that there has EVER BEEN to find new ways to profit. The more concentrated that knowledge becomes, the more concentrated opportunity and profit becomes. It's a pretty direct correlation.

  25. Headline is simply not true by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

    While oil was the world's most valuable resource, it has been surpassed by data, as evidenced by the five most valuable companies in the world today -- Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft and Google's parent company Alphabet.

    Why base it on market capitalization? As the dot-com bubble showed, that's an extremely variable and unreliable way to measure a company's success.

    Based on annual revenue - you know, how much these companies actually sell, which seems like a more relevant measure if you're talking about how valuable their product is - the listed companies rank:

    #9 Apple
    #26 Amazon
    #65 Alphabet
    #69 Microsoft
    #393 Facebook

    The top ten companies based on revenue are:

    #1 Walmart (retail)
    #2 State Grid (Chinese electricity utility)
    #3 Sinopec Group (oil)
    #4 China National Petroleum (oil)
    #5 Toyota Motor (auto)
    #6 Volkswagen (auto)
    #7 Royal Dutch Shell (oil)
    #8 Berkshire Hathaway (finance)
    #9 Apple (tech)
    #10 Exxon Mobil (oil)

    So based on value of sales, the world's most valuable commodity remains oil.

    The top ten companies based on profit are:

    #1 Apple (tech)
    #2 JP Morgan Chase (finance)
    #3 Berkshire Hathaway (finance)
    #4 Wells Fargo (finance)
    #5 Gilead Sciences (pharmaceuticals)
    #6 Verizon (telecom)
    #7 Citigroup (finance)
    #8 Alphabet (tech)
    #9 Exxon Mobil (oil)
    #10 Bank of America (finance)

    So based on profit, the world's most valuable commodity is financial services.

    Revenue = how much you actually sell
    Profit = how strong your sales are (delta between supply and demand)
    Market cap = investors (including clueless ones) placing bets

    1. Re:Headline is simply not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You and your silly facts. It's feelings that matter now. I need to believe that someone is oppressing me to fuel my outrage against the man. The white man is stealing my data. Quick, somebody tell me where the closest statue is. "Hey Siri! Where's the closest statue of a white man?"

    2. Re:Headline is simply not true by PineHall · · Score: 2

      Interesting! I agree that oil and financial services are the foundations of today's economy. But is the information being collected also a foundation or will be a future foundation since the stock market is forward-looking? I think so. The future economy will be even more dependent on our personal information and already today many businesses do depend on it. The market cap numbers are future-looking. The values may be off a little bit but the trend toward personal information being very important is clear.

    3. Re:Headline is simply not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As if the stock market isn't white supremacist institution.

      Remember folks, if white people do it, it's white supremacy. If non-white people do it, its liberation. "It" being pretty much anything and everything.

      So go kys white people, you're a stain on humanity and must be eradicated.

  26. If those companies are so powerful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do they bend over to government censorship demands

  27. Only Now? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    ummmmm, duuhhhh. Put out as much fake data as you can about yourself. May as well make it funny.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  28. no way by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Oil is still the most important resource. Try and warm yourself in winter with personal data. Making fertilizer to feed 100s of millions. Building roads and other infrastructure. Doesn't work!

  29. so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in effect mussolini style fascism

    hail disney?

  30. Fine. by PPH · · Score: 1

    Just as long as they acknowledge the value of that information when they take it from me. And compensate me for it properly.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  31. Does this mean I'll get paid for sending dick pics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And do I get royalties if people forward them?

  32. Marx has been here here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing really to see here, Marx foresaw power being concentrated in a few hands, eg a monopoly eventually occurs in the absence of state intervention.
    Personally I prefer a few unaccountable tech companies holding power than various TLA govt agencies.