Or Apple could have them sent to secret iPhone manufacturing facilities to have their organs converted into the latest "Samsung supplied OLED screens."
I don't care about computer illiterate, I personally don't feel like having "another thing to do." I'm constantly hassled with software updates that switch up my routine, and at this point I'm starting to just prefer paper. After all, it isn't "just" Google that wants to dream up the next great paradigm to force everyone else to learn. I'm tired and busy, and installing some stupid update and re-learning it is ANOTHER piece of crap I have to deal with. It feels like every so often, I launch an app and am greeted with an "easy" 5-step tutorial to the "new exciting changes" that moved all my buttons around AGAIN.
Actually, it's free to set up HTTPS if you use letsencrypt.org. It takes roughly an hour of research to get it working, give or take depending on your current server setup. There are only a couple of gotchas: one, you have to make a certificate signing request file,.csr, which is easier on Linux than Windows. IIRC you can do it with Docker on a Windows machine. The second catch is, there are actually two files you have to put on your webserver, one is the private key, but the other is some "security key history" file that says where the security key came from. I can't for the life of me remember how that was setup, but it gave me some ugly unexplained "not secure" error in Chrome until some furious Googling surfaced the issue.
Oh, and the third catch is, try to make the links embedded in your site use https, since an http frame embedded in an https frame isn't secure by virtue of the parent frame. Anyway, if you take the dive, expect a few headaches and unexplained "this page is not secure" experiences before you hammer out the bugs. But it's doable in a single weekend for free, and you get a nice professional looking https bar as a bonus.
Also, some managed cloud services can turn on https for you with the push of a button, so it could be worth digging around in your settings if you're using a high level CMS / cloud host.
Statistical analysis by unbiased machine learning systems, derived via data on social media platforms including Twitter, that Trump would win. The difference between the correct and wrong predictive systems is that one was just left-wing echo chambers regurgitating Hillary propaganda, the other was a genuine unbiased prediction engine. All these departure protests are is more left-wing bullying to manipulate social media into promoting their bull crap.
"You seem to be confusing solar energy (as you put it) with solar power generation equipment."
Here I was thinking we had electric lines between the United States and China to give us their solar power exports. Boy I sure am enlightened now.
"Your equivalence is false"
No it isn't. Existing equipment requires continual maintenance and replacement, and new installations are frequently needed to account for growing energy demands in the population. More than that, ramping up nation-state scale production of equipment isn't something that can be done overnight. Being cutoff from OPEC would have similar consequences as being cutoff from renewable energy for dependent nations without their own production.
The predominate exporter of solar energy is China. Now I don't care if you want green energy or not, the net effect is the relocation of U.S. energy dependence from OPEC to China. Now, given Saudi Arabia has basically crapped all over human rights with zero international challenge as a result of their control of energy, it should be clear to everyone the dangers of such a situation. And what we see is a long line of Chinese donations to the political party which keeps shipping U.S. energy to China "in the name of the environment" and "free trade": These aren't new claims, e.g. from 1998: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05... What's fantastic is when Republicans point this out, they're just labeled "science deniers."
This, hard; Most people who watch movies as entertainment are going to be slow to adopt new hobbies. What the report really says is "bored people on Monday evening settle to watch movie they're not that interested in because they couldn't think of anything else to do." This is the precise arrogance that pushed Block Buster Video out of business.
Have you ever spent $50 to see someone perform and try to capture the moment, only to have the jerk you spent $50 to see yell at you for not experiencing things how they see fit? I actually have several friends who have bands, and I can tell you they'd be more than happy to have 10,000 cameras flooding them onto social media. Further more, art and general aesthetic response is subjective. Art isn't even about the audience per se, though artist and audience can blend those lines. Of course, I don't think grumpy musicians are generally reveling in meta-art the moment they tiss fit about cameras from stage, though I'm sure at some point a clever artist will play those strings.
I am a god! The audience in the palm of my hand, Moved by my every word, Swaying to the rhythms I command, I am a god!...
Wait, what are you doing with those cameras my worshipers!? Put those up you plebeian scum, I am your god. Put those up so you can worship me how I see fit!
It was a great insult to have art displayed in a contemporary place at one time, but it took someone of slightly higher mental acuity to recognize their own bombastic tendencies and look beyond them. It's incredibly pigheaded to have ten thousand people willing to get out to see you and immortalize their experience, and have no respect for that. Rob Zombie can either get a check on his gigantic ego or go the way of the rest of the artists whining to make it into the Louvre while Matisse immortalized himself in farmhouses.
Oh cry me a fine arts river. Matisse displayed his work in farm houses, at a time other artists demanded audiences trek to Paris to revere their holy arts. Marcel Duchamp engraved art on a toilet, when most artists expected shrines to their works. If history is any indication, it's doubtful future generations will look back with admiration at the "artists" who threw tissy fits at cell phone users.
Any great performer knows the show is never about them, it's about the audience.
Post Modern art rung true in light of War Time propaganda, Beethtoven composed his art to be comprehensible to the widest of audiences, Show Boat reflected interpersonal racial dynamics in southern states. Art reflects through an individual by shared experiences. The critical mistake here is that the person behind the lens has reached for their phone because of an accumulation of personal desires, say by a deep urge to appear digitally relevant, or to feel socially desirable by their peers. An artist knows how to relate to the times, not stamp their feet.
The United States treasury has already called foul on the retroactive money grab. And it's incredibly ironic you came in with brazen insults and then want to act surprised when someone points out your ignorance. You're living under a rock, this is clearly a money grab, and completely blind to reality and obvious regional facts. What's especially ridiculous is you're the one running contrary to blatant facts, and want to point the finger this way. You're a hypocrite and blind to causal reality. Don't like it? Tough.
You've given no facts to support any of your claims. I've plenty well cited regional EU history and decades of non-action. It's absurd to bury your head in the sand and ignore the clear facts the EU is looking for a quick buck. The only one who is post factual - and post sound reason - is you.
"You're just uninformed" is the typical battle drum of socialist plutocrats. I'm plenty informed: The EU's economy isn't looking hot, and they're looking for an excuse to get a quick handout. Even the US government is crying foul on this one. It's incredibly arrogant for you to swoop in with your "ah, uninformed masses!" bullcrap. The only one who's ignorant is you, because you've bought hook-line-and-sinker into the promise of being "enlightened" by plutcratic propaganda. As if the largest refugee crises in history coupled with the Greek and British fiasco are just happy financial coincidences.
What's absurd is to act like this is just tax business as usual.
Absolutely, and the fact this went on for decades only show it was never about rule of law, it's about "now Apple has a lot of money, lets get some." If the EU was worried about tax law, they would have spoken up years ago.
The EU has turned into a parasitic leech that wants to fund irresponsible socialist programs with outside money, because they've spent the last three decades trying to eat their own tail. The Irish tax system has been in place for literally decades, it's a joke that the EU is trying to retroactively change tax laws of a sovereign nation state for a quick pay day. The EU is quickly going to find itself a land no one wants to touch because of the arrogant plutocrats who will magically decide you owe back taxes anytime their irresponsible financial management lands them in a pinch.
Comcast doesn't need an excuse to extort you, they have a monopoly on the market.
I am curious if an ad-analyzer could detect statistical anomalies in display ads which would indicate a privacy violation. Some companies will throw in random ads to make things feel less creepy, but I imagine a well trained computer could skirt the red herrings. Eitherway we want to slice it, unless we have a wholesale ban on data-tracking (-including- opt-in/out schemes) I doubt privacy issues will be going anywhere soon. I'm more hopeful in Comcast ultimately fueling a new market that ultimately overcomes the privacy issues they created, than a big government intervention. Comcast may not hold true to their privacy product, but the me-too's may eventually succeed.
Ultimately we're arguing a hypothetical of what the outcome "may" be, so I think this may just be an agree to disagree situation (unless you can cite some solid research on the subject, I may be willing to budge with that.)
Right, but the modern progressive narrative is that it's a person's choice to participate in sex work. I entirely and fully agree that underhanded privacy violations without clear consent are wrong, especially when most people simply assume privacy since it has been an assumption for thousands of years. We can both lock arms and definitely agree that's wrong and needs to be stopped.
Our deviation of view is in individual choice to participate in such schemes, and whether or not to frame it as a positive-or-negative event. If Amazon started offering free Prime Shipping for permission to open my packages and advertise to me based on it, my rather vanilla cis-gender male interests would make me more than happy to do so. Now I understand people from other demographics may not feel safe doing that, and I'm plenty well ensuring they have access to privacy in a reasonable, easy fashion at their discretion. But in the same fashion, I am -not- interested in participating in porno, but that does not mean no one can participate in sex-work who might like to. And I'm sure people who would participate likewise agree I personally have a right to be free from such.
The same goes for food. Many poor people skip out on side dishes to meals, etc, and end up eating unhealthy, incomplete meals because they're too poor to afford the full dish. They also may decide to engage in fasting because of their poverty. But that does not mean I think fasting is wrong for someone who chooses it, nor does it mean we should ban the sale of food and replace it with government issued rations.
The thing is, I'm more confident that if Comcast is paid to have a privacy package, that they'll probably find clever ways to keep -others- from spying to boot. Now they have a vested interest in not only violating the tubes you have access to, but making sure others on the other end don't spy on your tubes as well. More than that, it makes it into a tangible product, which creates a market for competition, etc. Of course this is the same as the food industry: food as a service means "going without eating" is an assumed thing that must be bought out of by money. As is, children do without food by default, and food must be acquired via money. In those cases, we have food programs (which still need work, IMHO.)
Still, I can respect your point of view, but personally I think Comcast will do more for privacy trying to sell it as a product than a government mandate will. We can take care of our poor who can't afford such a service the same way we do those who can't afford food. Of course, in your defense, education and housing have yet to be properly tackled via government support, despite free market innovation. So I can definitely understand your concerns are legitimate.
"Storage thingies can consolidate duplicate files without inspecting them."
Online banking, social media, email, etc, have a growing body of personal data, which perform a plethora of services and intercommunicate. Those industries are evolving at a rapid, ever changing pace. Law, on the otherhand, is historically bad at keeping up with change. If we want to make a happy compromise, it would be much better to have a government program to ensure the poor have access to privacy-products. Free market is clearly good at creating solid technologies, and there is much more space for privacy innovation when it's framed as a product to be marketed and promoted. Food is also a fundamental human right, and free market has done plenty well in creating it - but to supplement, we create programs to provide food assistance to families when needed. We may as well attack General Mills for having the audacity to charge for the fundamental human right to eat, or sue Barnes & Nobel for charging for books.
"The public does not properly value their privacy, because in aggregate humans are idiots, and civics is no longer taught in schools."
I have to argue that it's better to have privacy as a clear-cut service, as opposed to an implied "I hope for." Companies will always find ways to skirt government mandates via the fuzzy holes of logic inherit in online communications. "I want you to host all my files, BUT NO PEEKING." Google Music may have ten million copies of a hit song in ten million different drive accounts - logic would dictate Google just holds a few redundant copies at various encodings, and everyone points to the same bits. Can Google do that legally and privately? Privacy as a service as opposed to a hidden discount makes it a product people can view and think of concretely, as opposed to a lack of something that's slightly more esoteric reserved for enlightened social progressives.
Also let me give you a privacy tip:don't share online what you don't want online. Computer systems are inherently insecure, there will always be a hacker or something to violate your privacy. ALWAYS. I don't mind if Google tracks me in exchange for good services and way too many Hugo Boss ads, although they may have noticed I thought I had a hernia a while back (the doctor said it was just a strain, thankfully.) Deary me! A hernia! Did you know men get them near their groin? It's a bad place, your intestines can actually enter the nether zone through the herniated spot, via where the testicles descend. Always use proper lifting technique Google spies, ALWAYS.
I don't think you're entitled, I've just worked in business for way too long to buy into the usual spin. If Comcast charges you $5 for privacy, that's the same as a $5 discount for allowing them to use your aggregate data for marketing. If someone wants to sell aggregate Internet data to their ISP for a credit on their monthly bill, that's their business. But that's the same case as "paying for privacy," it's just that we've traded the $5 credit with a $5 charge, with the base-product price shifted $5 accordingly.
ISP: "Your bill is $105, would you like to sell us aggregate surfing data for a $5 credit per month? With selling your private data: $100, without: $105." ISP: "Your bill is $100, would you like to buy privacy for $5 per month? Without buying privacy: $100, with buying privacy: $105."
If I want to sell my aggregate data for $5, that's my own business. But because of base-cost shifts, that's the same as saying I have to pay for privacy (i.e. not get the $5 from selling my data.) If we're worried about the poor, we'd be better off addressing the systematic causes of poverty in the first place, or at least issuing a credit for low-income house holds to have their privacy fee covered.
You definitely aren't entitled to free social media, free email, free photo hosting, 15gb of free cloud storage, free video hosting, etc; Those services operate under the predicate that you permit (see: give up) your right to "privacy."
The abstraction is relative: we can charge $5 for shipping, or markup the product $5 and claim shipping is "free."
Eitherway, if the company who creates the products you use free of charge is unable to monetize personal data, then the income differential ultimately will come from the consumer, in the form of higher product costs. "Privacy" will be free, your free-email will not be.
If you want to enforce it as a right, then it will need to be outright illegal to transfer private information - even your own - for monetary gain, but that happens to be another restriction on the supposed personal freedoms that were supposed to be protected. And if we do allow individuals to trade personal information for goods and services, that's the situation we already have but with rearranged wording.
Comcast can "charge" you $5 for privacy, or it can mark up your goods $5 and offer to "buy" aggregate information from you for $5 per month. If we want to ban such a practice, likewise we have to ban individuals from selling aggregate data about themselves, since they're just clever re-wordings of the exact same practice. A company -charging- for privacy is the same as a company -buying- personal information.
Pop-up ads aren't so simple, they serve the useful function of making a product more familiar, and thus more desirable. This is a phenomenon documented by reputable psychology research. It has also been demonstrated that nasty behavior - especially online - is generally used to shut down people's critical faculties, which probably tells us something about the intellectual integrity of your position.
Slashdot Mirror
Or Apple could have them sent to secret iPhone manufacturing facilities to have their organs converted into the latest "Samsung supplied OLED screens."
Conspiracy, or FACT?
I don't care about computer illiterate, I personally don't feel like having "another thing to do." I'm constantly hassled with software updates that switch up my routine, and at this point I'm starting to just prefer paper. After all, it isn't "just" Google that wants to dream up the next great paradigm to force everyone else to learn. I'm tired and busy, and installing some stupid update and re-learning it is ANOTHER piece of crap I have to deal with. It feels like every so often, I launch an app and am greeted with an "easy" 5-step tutorial to the "new exciting changes" that moved all my buttons around AGAIN.
Actually, it's free to set up HTTPS if you use letsencrypt.org. It takes roughly an hour of research to get it working, give or take depending on your current server setup. There are only a couple of gotchas: one, you have to make a certificate signing request file, .csr, which is easier on Linux than Windows. IIRC you can do it with Docker on a Windows machine. The second catch is, there are actually two files you have to put on your webserver, one is the private key, but the other is some "security key history" file that says where the security key came from. I can't for the life of me remember how that was setup, but it gave me some ugly unexplained "not secure" error in Chrome until some furious Googling surfaced the issue.
Oh, and the third catch is, try to make the links embedded in your site use https, since an http frame embedded in an https frame isn't secure by virtue of the parent frame. Anyway, if you take the dive, expect a few headaches and unexplained "this page is not secure" experiences before you hammer out the bugs. But it's doable in a single weekend for free, and you get a nice professional looking https bar as a bonus.
Also, some managed cloud services can turn on https for you with the push of a button, so it could be worth digging around in your settings if you're using a high level CMS / cloud host.
Statistical analysis by unbiased machine learning systems, derived via data on social media platforms including Twitter, that Trump would win. The difference between the correct and wrong predictive systems is that one was just left-wing echo chambers regurgitating Hillary propaganda, the other was a genuine unbiased prediction engine. All these departure protests are is more left-wing bullying to manipulate social media into promoting their bull crap.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/28...
"You seem to be confusing solar energy (as you put it) with solar power generation equipment."
Here I was thinking we had electric lines between the United States and China to give us their solar power exports. Boy I sure am enlightened now.
"Your equivalence is false"
No it isn't. Existing equipment requires continual maintenance and replacement, and new installations are frequently needed to account for growing energy demands in the population. More than that, ramping up nation-state scale production of equipment isn't something that can be done overnight. Being cutoff from OPEC would have similar consequences as being cutoff from renewable energy for dependent nations without their own production.
The predominate exporter of solar energy is China. Now I don't care if you want green energy or not, the net effect is the relocation of U.S. energy dependence from OPEC to China. Now, given Saudi Arabia has basically crapped all over human rights with zero international challenge as a result of their control of energy, it should be clear to everyone the dangers of such a situation. And what we see is a long line of Chinese donations to the political party which keeps shipping U.S. energy to China "in the name of the environment" and "free trade": These aren't new claims, e.g. from 1998: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05... What's fantastic is when Republicans point this out, they're just labeled "science deniers."
This, hard; Most people who watch movies as entertainment are going to be slow to adopt new hobbies. What the report really says is "bored people on Monday evening settle to watch movie they're not that interested in because they couldn't think of anything else to do." This is the precise arrogance that pushed Block Buster Video out of business.
Yup, for some reason this is XML's fault.
Have you ever spent $50 to see someone perform and try to capture the moment, only to have the jerk you spent $50 to see yell at you for not experiencing things how they see fit? I actually have several friends who have bands, and I can tell you they'd be more than happy to have 10,000 cameras flooding them onto social media. Further more, art and general aesthetic response is subjective. Art isn't even about the audience per se, though artist and audience can blend those lines. Of course, I don't think grumpy musicians are generally reveling in meta-art the moment they tiss fit about cameras from stage, though I'm sure at some point a clever artist will play those strings.
I am a god! ...
The audience in the palm of my hand,
Moved by my every word,
Swaying to the rhythms I command,
I am a god!
Wait, what are you doing with those cameras my worshipers!?
Put those up you plebeian scum, I am your god.
Put those up so you can worship me how I see fit!
It was a great insult to have art displayed in a contemporary place at one time, but it took someone of slightly higher mental acuity to recognize their own bombastic tendencies and look beyond them. It's incredibly pigheaded to have ten thousand people willing to get out to see you and immortalize their experience, and have no respect for that. Rob Zombie can either get a check on his gigantic ego or go the way of the rest of the artists whining to make it into the Louvre while Matisse immortalized himself in farmhouses.
Oh cry me a fine arts river. Matisse displayed his work in farm houses, at a time other artists demanded audiences trek to Paris to revere their holy arts. Marcel Duchamp engraved art on a toilet, when most artists expected shrines to their works. If history is any indication, it's doubtful future generations will look back with admiration at the "artists" who threw tissy fits at cell phone users.
Any great performer knows the show is never about them, it's about the audience.
Post Modern art rung true in light of War Time propaganda, Beethtoven composed his art to be comprehensible to the widest of audiences, Show Boat reflected interpersonal racial dynamics in southern states. Art reflects through an individual by shared experiences. The critical mistake here is that the person behind the lens has reached for their phone because of an accumulation of personal desires, say by a deep urge to appear digitally relevant, or to feel socially desirable by their peers. An artist knows how to relate to the times, not stamp their feet.
The United States treasury has already called foul on the retroactive money grab. And it's incredibly ironic you came in with brazen insults and then want to act surprised when someone points out your ignorance. You're living under a rock, this is clearly a money grab, and completely blind to reality and obvious regional facts. What's especially ridiculous is you're the one running contrary to blatant facts, and want to point the finger this way. You're a hypocrite and blind to causal reality. Don't like it? Tough.
You've given no facts to support any of your claims. I've plenty well cited regional EU history and decades of non-action. It's absurd to bury your head in the sand and ignore the clear facts the EU is looking for a quick buck. The only one who is post factual - and post sound reason - is you.
"You're just uninformed" is the typical battle drum of socialist plutocrats. I'm plenty informed: The EU's economy isn't looking hot, and they're looking for an excuse to get a quick handout. Even the US government is crying foul on this one. It's incredibly arrogant for you to swoop in with your "ah, uninformed masses!" bullcrap. The only one who's ignorant is you, because you've bought hook-line-and-sinker into the promise of being "enlightened" by plutcratic propaganda. As if the largest refugee crises in history coupled with the Greek and British fiasco are just happy financial coincidences.
What's absurd is to act like this is just tax business as usual.
Absolutely, and the fact this went on for decades only show it was never about rule of law, it's about "now Apple has a lot of money, lets get some." If the EU was worried about tax law, they would have spoken up years ago.
The EU has turned into a parasitic leech that wants to fund irresponsible socialist programs with outside money, because they've spent the last three decades trying to eat their own tail. The Irish tax system has been in place for literally decades, it's a joke that the EU is trying to retroactively change tax laws of a sovereign nation state for a quick pay day. The EU is quickly going to find itself a land no one wants to touch because of the arrogant plutocrats who will magically decide you owe back taxes anytime their irresponsible financial management lands them in a pinch.
Advertisers intentionally throw in random junk to make their ads not so creepy.
Comcast doesn't need an excuse to extort you, they have a monopoly on the market.
I am curious if an ad-analyzer could detect statistical anomalies in display ads which would indicate a privacy violation. Some companies will throw in random ads to make things feel less creepy, but I imagine a well trained computer could skirt the red herrings. Eitherway we want to slice it, unless we have a wholesale ban on data-tracking (-including- opt-in/out schemes) I doubt privacy issues will be going anywhere soon. I'm more hopeful in Comcast ultimately fueling a new market that ultimately overcomes the privacy issues they created, than a big government intervention. Comcast may not hold true to their privacy product, but the me-too's may eventually succeed.
Ultimately we're arguing a hypothetical of what the outcome "may" be, so I think this may just be an agree to disagree situation (unless you can cite some solid research on the subject, I may be willing to budge with that.)
Right, but the modern progressive narrative is that it's a person's choice to participate in sex work. I entirely and fully agree that underhanded privacy violations without clear consent are wrong, especially when most people simply assume privacy since it has been an assumption for thousands of years. We can both lock arms and definitely agree that's wrong and needs to be stopped.
Our deviation of view is in individual choice to participate in such schemes, and whether or not to frame it as a positive-or-negative event. If Amazon started offering free Prime Shipping for permission to open my packages and advertise to me based on it, my rather vanilla cis-gender male interests would make me more than happy to do so. Now I understand people from other demographics may not feel safe doing that, and I'm plenty well ensuring they have access to privacy in a reasonable, easy fashion at their discretion. But in the same fashion, I am -not- interested in participating in porno, but that does not mean no one can participate in sex-work who might like to. And I'm sure people who would participate likewise agree I personally have a right to be free from such.
The same goes for food. Many poor people skip out on side dishes to meals, etc, and end up eating unhealthy, incomplete meals because they're too poor to afford the full dish. They also may decide to engage in fasting because of their poverty. But that does not mean I think fasting is wrong for someone who chooses it, nor does it mean we should ban the sale of food and replace it with government issued rations.
The thing is, I'm more confident that if Comcast is paid to have a privacy package, that they'll probably find clever ways to keep -others- from spying to boot. Now they have a vested interest in not only violating the tubes you have access to, but making sure others on the other end don't spy on your tubes as well. More than that, it makes it into a tangible product, which creates a market for competition, etc. Of course this is the same as the food industry: food as a service means "going without eating" is an assumed thing that must be bought out of by money. As is, children do without food by default, and food must be acquired via money. In those cases, we have food programs (which still need work, IMHO.)
Still, I can respect your point of view, but personally I think Comcast will do more for privacy trying to sell it as a product than a government mandate will. We can take care of our poor who can't afford such a service the same way we do those who can't afford food. Of course, in your defense, education and housing have yet to be properly tackled via government support, despite free market innovation. So I can definitely understand your concerns are legitimate.
"Storage thingies can consolidate duplicate files without inspecting them."
Online banking, social media, email, etc, have a growing body of personal data, which perform a plethora of services and intercommunicate. Those industries are evolving at a rapid, ever changing pace. Law, on the otherhand, is historically bad at keeping up with change. If we want to make a happy compromise, it would be much better to have a government program to ensure the poor have access to privacy-products. Free market is clearly good at creating solid technologies, and there is much more space for privacy innovation when it's framed as a product to be marketed and promoted. Food is also a fundamental human right, and free market has done plenty well in creating it - but to supplement, we create programs to provide food assistance to families when needed. We may as well attack General Mills for having the audacity to charge for the fundamental human right to eat, or sue Barnes & Nobel for charging for books.
"The public does not properly value their privacy, because in aggregate humans are idiots, and civics is no longer taught in schools."
I have to argue that it's better to have privacy as a clear-cut service, as opposed to an implied "I hope for." Companies will always find ways to skirt government mandates via the fuzzy holes of logic inherit in online communications. "I want you to host all my files, BUT NO PEEKING." Google Music may have ten million copies of a hit song in ten million different drive accounts - logic would dictate Google just holds a few redundant copies at various encodings, and everyone points to the same bits. Can Google do that legally and privately? Privacy as a service as opposed to a hidden discount makes it a product people can view and think of concretely, as opposed to a lack of something that's slightly more esoteric reserved for enlightened social progressives.
Also let me give you a privacy tip:don't share online what you don't want online. Computer systems are inherently insecure, there will always be a hacker or something to violate your privacy. ALWAYS. I don't mind if Google tracks me in exchange for good services and way too many Hugo Boss ads, although they may have noticed I thought I had a hernia a while back (the doctor said it was just a strain, thankfully.) Deary me! A hernia! Did you know men get them near their groin? It's a bad place, your intestines can actually enter the nether zone through the herniated spot, via where the testicles descend. Always use proper lifting technique Google spies, ALWAYS.
I don't think you're entitled, I've just worked in business for way too long to buy into the usual spin. If Comcast charges you $5 for privacy, that's the same as a $5 discount for allowing them to use your aggregate data for marketing. If someone wants to sell aggregate Internet data to their ISP for a credit on their monthly bill, that's their business. But that's the same case as "paying for privacy," it's just that we've traded the $5 credit with a $5 charge, with the base-product price shifted $5 accordingly.
ISP: "Your bill is $105, would you like to sell us aggregate surfing data for a $5 credit per month? With selling your private data: $100, without: $105."
ISP: "Your bill is $100, would you like to buy privacy for $5 per month? Without buying privacy: $100, with buying privacy: $105."
If I want to sell my aggregate data for $5, that's my own business. But because of base-cost shifts, that's the same as saying I have to pay for privacy (i.e. not get the $5 from selling my data.) If we're worried about the poor, we'd be better off addressing the systematic causes of poverty in the first place, or at least issuing a credit for low-income house holds to have their privacy fee covered.
You definitely aren't entitled to free social media, free email, free photo hosting, 15gb of free cloud storage, free video hosting, etc; Those services operate under the predicate that you permit (see: give up) your right to "privacy."
The abstraction is relative: we can charge $5 for shipping, or markup the product $5 and claim shipping is "free."
Eitherway, if the company who creates the products you use free of charge is unable to monetize personal data, then the income differential ultimately will come from the consumer, in the form of higher product costs. "Privacy" will be free, your free-email will not be.
If you want to enforce it as a right, then it will need to be outright illegal to transfer private information - even your own - for monetary gain, but that happens to be another restriction on the supposed personal freedoms that were supposed to be protected. And if we do allow individuals to trade personal information for goods and services, that's the situation we already have but with rearranged wording.
Comcast can "charge" you $5 for privacy, or it can mark up your goods $5 and offer to "buy" aggregate information from you for $5 per month. If we want to ban such a practice, likewise we have to ban individuals from selling aggregate data about themselves, since they're just clever re-wordings of the exact same practice. A company -charging- for privacy is the same as a company -buying- personal information.
Pop-up ads aren't so simple, they serve the useful function of making a product more familiar, and thus more desirable. This is a phenomenon documented by reputable psychology research. It has also been demonstrated that nasty behavior - especially online - is generally used to shut down people's critical faculties, which probably tells us something about the intellectual integrity of your position.
Citations:
Familiarity and desirability as it related to marketing: http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=ma...
The nasty effect: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...