This has always been the case in America...
Big powerful companies screwing over their customers...
But thanks to the internet these companies are now able to do this worldwide...
Mass commercial data gathering and opaque decision-making processes have a “massive potential” to damage personal autonomy and dignity, a report has said. Data gathered and stored by companies is increasingly being used to make decisions that can affect people’s lives, but the systems that drive these processes are often …
Make it a criminal offence to pass on, sell, or even buy and store indirect personal information. With criminal liability falling on the persons involved, certainly the executives. And pass the legislation quickly.
If for instance i buy some new windows from XXXX Co they obviously require certain personal information, name address and financial details as a minimum. But it should stop there and never be used by anyone else.
It also strikes me as being very odd when you take up a serious matter with many of the UK authorities, "ah well, we can't do anything ...because of Data Protection!" If they were private companies they'd be trading the data around at will.
"With criminal liability falling on the persons involved, certainly the executives."
We keep saying this but are such roles defined in law? Rather than target "the executives" go for the directors. That's a role that is defined in company law and they, ultimately, appoint the management chain.
Make it a criminal offence to pass on, sell, or even buy and store indirect personal information. With criminal liability falling on the persons involved, certainly the executives. And pass the legislation quickly.
Unless the board or execs are bleeding off money to personal accounts, I can't recall any prosecution of a board or exec. The companies own the legislatures so fat chance of this ever passing.
The power imbalance is what annoys me. So Microsoft (or whichever) can include T&Cs that basically state, "we can slurp your data and do what we like with it, you forego any rights to class actions, etc. By continuing to use the software you confirm your consent".
So my choice is to prostitute my legitimate expectations of privacy, or opt out of the norms of participation in modern economy.
"So my choice is to prostitute my legitimate expectations of privacy, or opt out of the norms of participation in modern economy."
So long as corporations are allowed to include it in their Terms of Service, you can be denied any legal right they choose. Once enough of them have excluded a legal right in their TOS, that legal right ceases to exist.
"So my choice is to prostitute my legitimate expectations of privacy, or opt out of the norms of participation in modern economy."
It depends where you live and whether or not you're purchasing as a consumer or a professional. In the civilised world consumer protection legislation may well protect you if you're the former although you'd have to go to court to achieve that.
So how obligated are we to supply accurate data?
Should the giving of fake details become SOP?
Should "anonymous" credit cards with no personal details on the front become a product?
So far evidence is people are getting the privacy level they are prepared to fight for.
And they aren't prepared to fight very hard.
"So how obligated are we to supply accurate data?"
Many T&Cs like Facebook's will obligate it, and if you don't cooperate, you give them carte blanche to de-anonymize you to get you back in line.
"Should the giving of fake details become SOP?"
Against the treasure trove of info already out there, including information provided by governments, we can't be sure fake details won't be ratted out as soon as we use them.
And PS. Data created through an agent can legally be THEIR data. Consider how work copyrights apply.
"In America, copyright would likely take precedence"
In the EU (and, theoretically in the UK after Brexit but that remains to be seen) it's privacy. GDPR requirements are eventually going to make anyone wanting to do business in Europe take this on board.
So the GDPR specifically and explicitly takes precedence over all other regulations, including those of copyright? I say that because at least the copyright mandate is part of the US Constitution so therefore really can't be overridden without an Amendment.
The idea of "ownership" of data is as complicated as with any other easily reproduced information, and this language is not helping.
The whole concept of possession implies something physical. For example, if I have a unique watch, nobody else can have it at the same time as me.
<pedant>As such, when it comes to personal information, it's really not "your data", it is "data about you".</pedant> Many people may have copies it without denying you. You don't ask an organization to return data about you, you ask to have it deleted. The fact that you exist means that information about you exists. (I'm not going to go all Descartes here, I promise.)
In reality, what people should be talking about is whether an organization has a right to keep particular types of information about you, not whether they own it. They might own a dataset - a collection of data that has an existence of it's own, but basic information is as Jefferson said about ideas, "it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it". As long as information is known to others, you cannot really claim to be able to control access to it.
I want to be clear. I'm not suggesting unrestricted data retention by organizations, merely that the language used about it should be changed.
This is a philosophical argument, I admit, and I know I will probably be downvoted over it, but, hey, the way it is being presented in the media annoys me.
This post has been deleted by its author
And THEY fire back by simply denying you access to their services until you allow them access on THEIR terms. Combined with the increasing necessity of these services (to link with remote family, maybe even get a job), this becomes the the "Walking on the Sun" retort.
Better data privacy and tracking practices need to start with reform by the largest players, like Criteo, the largest ad retargeter. In their own words, Criteo believes 95% of iOS users opt into being tracked by Criteo without their knowledge: "Only 5% of your users on average will see the header or footer. Where this is the case, the renunciation rate is generally less than 2%."
https://accelerate.criteo.com/hc/fr-fr/articles/207473609-Extended-Browser-Support-EBS-de-Criteo
Furthermore, a research outfit last week claimed that "Criteo’s usage of HSTS Super cookies is not only dangerous, but illegal." Surprisingly, Criteo responded with a lie, claiming that the company "provides full transparency and control to Safari users"
https://which-50.com/hiding-gotham-city-research-asks-criteo-says-company-destroying-evidence/