610
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] aaaaace@lemmy.blahaj.zone 63 points 1 month ago

It's time to start taxing the acquisition, retention, and selling/trading of personal data.

Actually, that time was 40 years ago.

[-] TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

Google and Microsoft would be scrambling to pay off every single person associated with that before it ever hit the first courtroom floor.

[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 13 points 1 month ago

GDPR is a start, but we need to actually ban it, not just annoy people until they click Accept at the 20th popup of that tantalising offer to share your details with 1473 trusted data partners.

[-] dan@upvote.au 1 points 1 month ago

You can just click deny instead. The law says the site must make it easy to do so.

[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 1 points 1 month ago

There's a bunch of newspapers already with the option between pay for privacy plus or accept tracking.

Fortunately there's a third option which is leave the site and never come back.

Plus most of the sites will ask you again after a period of time. Until you say yes. After that they can strangely remember your choice.

[-] dan@upvote.au 2 points 1 month ago

There's a bunch of newspapers already with the option between pay for privacy plus or accept tracking.

The EU has ruled that this isn't sufficient and that people shouldn't have to pay for privacy.

Of course, companies in the USA won't care, except for customers in California (thanks, CCPA and CPRA).

[-] Cataphract@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 month ago

ohhh data collection taxation, I like it. You would think it would be a no-brainer but look at marijuana taxation and the continued resistance to rake in all that public funding. Would make most of the controversy around AI disappear if they tax it's collection.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Better solution.

Data are owned by the generator. Only they can sell it etc...

This also solves the privacy problem of law enforcement agencies applying warrants to phone companies etc. for access to your data, which has been an end-run around 4th Amendment rights for decades.

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

Exactly. If a company wants to sell my data, they should have to make an explicit agreement with me to do that. If law enforcement wants data from my phone company, they should either produce a warrant or get my permission to release it. And so on.

If a company holds my data, they should be legally accountable for safeguarding it, and liable if it gets in the hands of someone I don't have an agreement with. Banks do that with my money, I don't see why social media companies should have any less expectation here.

And no, burying some form of consent in a TOS isn't sufficient, it needs to be explicit and there needs to be a reasonable expectation that the customer understands the terms.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I'd say it also needs to be entirely optional and be opt-in only. Any service, program, whatever needs to work fully for anyone who doesn't allow their data to be sold or released with extremely few exceptions.

this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
610 points (96.6% liked)

Technology

59200 readers
2814 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS