Slashdot Mirror
If Data Is the New Oil, Are Tech Companies Robbing Us Blind? (digitaltrends.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Digital Trends: Data is the new oil, or so the saying goes. So why are we giving it away for nothing more than ostensibly free email, better movie recommendations, and more accurate search results? It's an important question to ask in a world where the accumulation and scraping of data is worth billions of dollars -- and even a money-losing company with enough data about its users can be worth well into the eight-figure region. The essential bargain that's driven by today's tech giants is the purest form of cognitive capitalism: users feed in their brains -- whether this means solving a CAPTCHA to train AI systems or clicking links on Google to help it learn which websites are more important than others. In exchange for this, we get access to ostensibly "free" services, while simultaneously helping to train new technologies which may one day put large numbers of us out of business.
In an age in which concepts like universal basic income are increasingly widely discussed, one of the most intriguing solutions is one first put forward by virtual reality pioneer Jaron Lanier. In his book Who Owns the Future?, Lanier suggests that users should receive a micropayment every time their data is used to earn a company money. For example, consider the user who signs up to an online dating service. Here, the user provides data that the dating company uses to match them with a potential data. This matching process is, itself, based on algorithms honed by the data coming from previous users. The data resulting from the new user will further perfect the algorithms for later users of the service. In the case that your data somehow matches someone else successfully in a relationship, Lanier says you would be entitled to a micropayment.
In an age in which concepts like universal basic income are increasingly widely discussed, one of the most intriguing solutions is one first put forward by virtual reality pioneer Jaron Lanier. In his book Who Owns the Future?, Lanier suggests that users should receive a micropayment every time their data is used to earn a company money. For example, consider the user who signs up to an online dating service. Here, the user provides data that the dating company uses to match them with a potential data. This matching process is, itself, based on algorithms honed by the data coming from previous users. The data resulting from the new user will further perfect the algorithms for later users of the service. In the case that your data somehow matches someone else successfully in a relationship, Lanier says you would be entitled to a micropayment.
If Data is the New Oil, then Data Privacy is the New Ecology Movement.
Pretty soon, A.I. will be able to identify you in public; first when you voluntarily give up your "identity" (such as use a fingerprint scanner or iris scanner) then at a distance when facial recognition or voice analysis will be able to pick you out of a crowd. Maybe, paired with enough data, you'll even be tracked from a great distance based on your clothing and gait analysis.
They'll be able to learn what you do, what you drive, what you eat (and where and when) and of course who you associate with (and maybe why!). Soon, your preferences and habits will become part of your profile; whether or not you like your coffee black, are you an aggressive driver, do you look at other members of the opposite sex.
Let's hope that the people keeping this data don't get hacked (like Equifax!).
Finally, this will be paired with your genetic profile (full disclosure, that's what I analyze). Then, unless pesky privacy laws prevent this, they'll be able to match your habits/health/profession with your gene expression. In the best outcome; you'll get an e-mail from Genes "R" Us saying that with a simple modification of your genes administered (via oral CRISPR) you could be 20% more effective in your work/sex life/happiness. In the worst outcome you'll be subtly manipulated to purchase products that for some strange reason appeal to you; or you'll find yourself doing things that aren't in your best interest (like becoming very irritable when exposed to a certain scent). Of course, if the people who are manipulating you are allowed to make changes to your DNA then you could literally end up their puppet. (Well, once they have behavioral genetics figured out).
But don't worry, this won't happen for at least another 5 years!
Very few persons who are ultimately responsible for data breaches are held to account.
It's time to fight back - from within.
*** Don't be dull.***
If you as a private individual elect to use services such as "Google Docs" or Microsoft "Office 365", then implicitly you are using on-line services and functionality to capture and store your creative output. The terms [for Google, certainly] under which this happens are pretty clear. See:-
https://support.google.com/dri...
However, if you elect to purchase products [say CDs or Blurays] from an on-line retailer, then your use of that on-line service is captured, analyzed, but then used to sell other product to other people. Amazon are pretty transparent about this - look for "The Page You Made" as a link on their site after you've been browsing for a bit...
There are two key differences. Firstly, Amazon are using your input as a mechanism to generate profit for themselves - income that they do not share with you, despite the fact that they are at least partially dependent upon you for the information. Secondly, the respective terms and conditions - crucially, for activities that are legally similar - are very, very different.
The retailers believe that they own anything you "do" with their web site. The cloud utility providers make it explicitly clear they make no such claims. Obviously, these differing opinions can both be legally claimed thanks to the terms and conditions that we implicitly accept when we access these different resources. It's equally obvious that the effort that the retailers put into their analysis pays off - or they would stop.
Where this gets interesting is the way that the retailers are essentially leveraging our use of their product to market yet more "stuff" to us, thereby actions which benefit the retailer but not the consumer. I would be quite happy to argue that my use of a retailer's web site constitutes a unique creative activity on my part and that, as such, my actions should be considered a copyright-protected work, and something that I explicitly do not agree to be re-used, in any way, without my express permission. Unfortunately for me, the law [and the retailers] would laugh themselves silly.
I think we can pretty quickly conclude that the dynamic in the relationship between retailers and consumers [and this is no longer exclusively related to on-line shopping, given the way that CCTV and wifi tracking is now being used to track shoppers around stores] has become seriously imbalanced. When that happens, we rely upon the law to keep the game even and fair. Unfortunately, these retail changes are coincident with extraordinary levels of lobbying, and essentially it pitches private citizens against both the state [because the state wants to spy on us] and corporations [which also want to monitor and track us].
Sadly, I think the chances of our seeing fair and equitable protections for shoppers or service consumers being enacted as law stand less of a chance than the proverbial snowball in hell.
Shame.