Slashdot Mirror
Apple CEO Tim Cook Calls For Laws To Tackle 'Shadow Economy' of Data Firms (time.com)
Apple's chief executive has called for regulation to tackle the "shadow economy" of data brokers -- intermediaries who trade in the personal information of largely unsuspecting consumers -- as the company continues its push to be seen as supportive of privacy. Tim Cook, in an op-ed for Time Magazine published on Thursday, said: One of the biggest challenges in protecting privacy is that many of the violations are invisible. For example, you might have bought a product from an online retailer -- something most of us have done. But what the retailer doesn't tell you is that it then turned around and sold or transferred information about your purchase to a "data broker" -- a company that exists purely to collect your information, package it and sell it to yet another buyer. The trail disappears before you even know there is a trail. Right now, all of these secondary markets for your information exist in a shadow economy that's largely unchecked -- out of sight of consumers, regulators and lawmakers.
Let's be clear: you never signed up for that. We think every user should have the chance to say, "Wait a minute. That's my information that you're selling, and I didn't consent." Meaningful, comprehensive federal privacy legislation should not only aim to put consumers in control of their data, it should also shine a light on actors trafficking in your data behind the scenes. Some state laws are looking to accomplish just that, but right now there is no federal standard protecting Americans from these practices. That's why we believe the Federal Trade Commission should establish a data-broker clearinghouse, requiring all data brokers to register, enabling consumers to track the transactions that have bundled and sold their data from place to place, and giving users the power to delete their data on demand, freely, easily and online, once and for all.
Let's be clear: you never signed up for that. We think every user should have the chance to say, "Wait a minute. That's my information that you're selling, and I didn't consent." Meaningful, comprehensive federal privacy legislation should not only aim to put consumers in control of their data, it should also shine a light on actors trafficking in your data behind the scenes. Some state laws are looking to accomplish just that, but right now there is no federal standard protecting Americans from these practices. That's why we believe the Federal Trade Commission should establish a data-broker clearinghouse, requiring all data brokers to register, enabling consumers to track the transactions that have bundled and sold their data from place to place, and giving users the power to delete their data on demand, freely, easily and online, once and for all.
These tech companies are starting to feel significant push back from consumers on data privacy issues, but they risk losing competitive advantage if they are the first to budge. The data is just to valuable. The government setting up laws which help protect privacy while creating a competitive environment where everyone is following the same rules is perhaps the only good option. They certainly aren't capable of governing themselves in a way which protects consumers (not that any other industry has ever been able to do that without government intervention).
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Acxiom
They have for decades been gathering info on first the US and later the world. They get mailing lists from the US post office. They cut the binders off US phone books and scan them. They get all the info off those warranty cards you send in, and all sorts of creative sources of information on you.
Even the US used them after 9/11 to try to hunt down people.
Hell, even major credit card companies use them to clean their databases.
I think they even now maybe own one of the credit bureaus, like Trans Union. If not owning them they are very cozy in business or used to be.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
" intermediaries who trade in the personal information of largely unsuspecting consumers "
Would Apple be quite so in favor of this we we, say, included hardware firms in the 'intermediaries' category?
-Styopa
Make some changes to the Fair Credit Reporting Act and apply it to all consumer reports. Thus you get the following
Access to Your Report – The act requires reporting agencies to provide you with any information in your file upon request once a year.
Protected Access – The act limits access to your file to those with a valid need.
Accurate Reporting – If inaccurate information is discovered in your file, the reporting agency must examine the disputed information, usually within 30 days. If the inaccurate information cannot be verified, the reporting agency has a responsibility to remove it. If you are not able to clear up the matter, you are allowed to add a statement to your file explaining the situation.
Have Outdated Information Removed – Negative information must be removed from your file after seven years.
Maintain Medical Information Privacy – reporting agencies are prohibited from obtaining or using medical information.
Seek Damages – You have the right to sue and seek damages in a state or federal court from anyone, such as a consumer reporting agency or a user of consumer reports, who violates the Fair Reporting Act.
Know When Your Report Is Used Against You – If you are denied credit, insurance,r employment, or any service because of your report, you can ask for the specific reason for the denial.
I have trouble sorting out Tim Cook's privacy principals so frequently espoused in press releases, op-eds and quips to the press from Apple's business agenda oriented towards marketing their platform as "privacy friendly".
It'd go a long way towards taking Cook and Apple as sincere if Apple would, in great detail, share with us what data they collect on their users, how they use it, and what data they allow Apps to collect, and what if any strings they attach to that data (which I doubt they can enforce anyway).
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Apple's only in the data collection game in any competitive sense if you're an iPhone user, but compared to Google and others, they're bush league and non-competitive, so "Apple as privacy advocate" isn't really because they care about data privacy, but because it's not a business they're competitive in. But if you *are* an i-device user there is, in fact, a ton of data collected about your usage which is of business advantage to Apple.
Which makes me question the sincerity of Cook's privacy speeches -- how do I know that most of this isn't just a marketing ploy to move users to their platform where they can grab the valuable data for themselves? Maybe they don't sell it to third parties, but they still collect it. And there's not exactly a lot of transparency on what they allow Apps to collect, either.
Overall, I'm inclined to believe that my privacy is moderately more protected on an iPhone than an Android, but only modestly.
Buisness's have been selling our data way before downloadable apps became popular. key cards to save money at supermarkets. That buying information was always being sold. Credit Card spending habits, again. Always was being sold.
This practice of selling information on your buying/browsing habits has been going on forever. And nobody really talked about it before, so again. Nothing different.
With that said though, I would expect any regulation to encompass any area where your private data is being sold.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
If you're here and complaining about slashdot, you haven't been here long enough.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
If you tell me a thing, I can share that thing. If I know a thing, I can sell that knowledge. These concepts have been enshrined into the United States law. You need a clear and pressing reason to restrict the right to free speech.
If you don't want your info shared, don't give it out.
If anything, Apple does far too little to reduce their tax bill. They should be zeroing it out the way that GE does.
Every dollar in government hands is dollar either wasted, or spent on causing bloody mayhem.
If you are not positing this from Somalia, then you are a hypocrite.
100% (or close to it) participation is critical to the business. Having both total access to us, as well as good quality/representational data, is crucial to the business. If the data is reduced by opt-out to any significant degree, the risk of a selection bias that makes the data marginally representational makes it virtually (!) USELESS.
So if you opt-out, and your favorite store knows you shop there but don't show up in their vast and viral marketing subconscious, they don;t know enough about you to expand their marketing, develop reliable trait definitions, and ultimately can't hit you as hard as they were paying for. And so they don't want to pay for semi-useless or less-useful data. The data aggregators lose revenue. And power. And they will fight back.
They will ignore your opt-out. Their surveillance will become even more covert. They will lie, and pay the fines (always insufficient to deter abuse). They will partner up with those who cannot be defied.
There isn't much we can do, short of punish the transgressors by refusing to do business with their willing partners, and that assumes we don't NEED to do business with these partners, some of which we will have to, no matter what.
Lost. We have lost.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Are there any real, specific examples of Microsoft monitizing (selling) the data they collect off hosts
Microsoft owns Linkedin, which has the same business model as Facebook.
Although it happened before Microsoft acquired them, Linkedin has used some extremely slimy business practices. They would deceive people into disclosing passwords to their email accounts, and then send out massive spams to their contacts. When I created my Linkedin account, I though "WTF are they asking for that?", but my spouse fell for it, and they auto-logged into her Yahoo account and spammed over a thousand people on her behalf, without her permission, many only casual acquaintances that she hadn't heard from in years and barely knew.
Right. Being a product manufacturer they just recognized a person's data as sacred and something to be respected.
The other "tech" firms were only ever able to monetize by serving ads. As soon as they went down that rabbit hole they got data greedy. Thier survival depends on getting data every which way from Sunday. They only way they can collect it and have it mean anything is to pin it to an identifiable person...otherwise thier data becomes detached and meaningless.
This has all come about quite unexpectedly. At first we were cool with Google showing us ads to use thier search. It felt a little dirty but some thing had to pay for that amazing and much needed service.
Going public, they needed to grow. There was no way to use thier data to grow unless they could track trends to a person.
Imagine trying to make sense of website traffic without attaching it to an IP address or session. Garbage data without the identifier.
Now we are asking regulators to let the air out of this massive industry.
Don't even get me started on Facebook. The value they provide doesn't even come close to Google and they are harvesting much more personal information.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
No taxes!? Hold up, is that a thing? Sign me the fuck up.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Apple could double if they tracked and sold customer data.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
When the summary says
"as the company continues its push to be seen as supportive of privacy."
- it is correct, the company does do that.
But the clear implication is that this effort is misleading. That Apple does not, in reality, support privacy. That is dishonest and doesn't belong on Slashdot.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Just off the top of my head, check your network traffic if you have a fresh install of Windows 10. I recall reading on Slashdot a few years back that Google's servers are being sent some form of telemetry data from fresh installs. Oh, and what about the personalized ads that show up in Windows and Xbox? How do you think that happened? Then there's LinkedIn, owned by Microsoft, which is quite obviously in the business of selling access to user data.
I'm sure I'm just scratching the surface here, but yes, Microsoft sells access to the data they collect off of their users.
The government themselves are the biggest data miners on the planet, Its called the census. and people want to think our government cares about our privacy when they have been making billions off of it themselves and still do. were fucked...The big players our government, then Google and FB follow inline so the less being able to data mine the more value it will have that's why apple doesn't want small players..and yes i concede they do more then any company to protect their customer privacy that's why their stuff is so expensive..but not the only reason. man polished metal finish is the bomb hahahah
Jack of all trades,master of none
I actually read Apple's terms of service a few years back (they're a surprisingly easy read compared to most I've read), and I don't recall anything resembling the sort of verbiage you're talking about. Could you cite it please?
I'll wait.
"Apple CEO Tim Cook Calls For Laws To Tackle 'Shadow Economy' of Data Firms "
No irony here, nosiree, not one bit, not even a smidgen.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
When the US gov gets bulk data from US brands is ok.
Junk encryption, US gov and mil working on US brands products and services.
US brands that think the US freedom of speech is sinful and that the internet has to be curated.
Brands that shadow ban, report and remove users content?
Now a US brand wants to tell the world about their understanding of terms like "privacy"?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
By other "Tech" firms you mean google, data mining has always been their business.
Microsoft on the other hand started out like Apple, selling products - yet they chose to also follow google presumably out of greed to add an extra revenue channel.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
What about them? Never got one, never will.
That said, would you prefer the television model? Just serve up random ads to you? If ads are going to be part of the world, you pretty much have the choice of random ads, or ads restricted to things you might, just possibly, be interested in buying...
Don't know about you, but if I have to see ads, I'd rather see ads for products I might want rather than random whatever....
Oh, and amazingly, I've never actually felt a compulsion to buy something just because I saw an ad for it.
Disclaimer: I use ad-blocking software. I haven't actually seen an ad on my computer in a very long time. But I couldn't care less that someone is trying to show me ads for products/services I might be interested in buying....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Thanks for telling us the official views of your employer Facebook. Or is it Google?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
The only one full of hate here is you. Chill out :)
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.