I'm always happy to give an email address, or accept adverts by email, 'cos I just give a fake or add them to my spam list after the initial verification.
My mobile phone number is a different matter as there's no spam filter yet.
Consumers are prepared to pay more for goods in exchange for more privacy but the difference comes down to pennies rather than pounds. A lab study sponsored by ENISA, the European Union security agency, confronted participants with a choice of whether to buy identical goods from two online vendors, one of which offered a lower …
> My mobile phone number is a different matter
But aren't these marketers just looking for *a* mobile number - one that fits the expected format: i.e. starts "07" (in the UK) and with the requisite number of digits?
Extra points if you can ascertain the marketing firm MD's mobile number and plug that in.
Some countries (ie Spain), you practically have to provide your ID every time you want to buy something and if it's a big sale, they'll take a photocopy for their records (a photocopy that probably includes date and place of birth if you're not Spanish - in fact they probably have your bank card details and your personal details - we're just lucky they're not very internet savvy...). Mobile phone numbers are not a bother - just get another one if it's a problem or give a fake number - no-one will know the difference. So it wouldn't be that much information to provide for a discount.
"Privacy" with DRM is just as bad as DRM itself. However, having no DRM includes privacy, and it is one of the points against DRM.
The more interesting question would be, how much people would be willing to pay more for a DRM free copy. Considering how much time and effort I had to spend playing a Blu-Ray I'd have to say paying 50 Euro for a DRM-free copy would certainly be cheaper than having DRM and needing to circumvent it in order to play it.
"Online businesses can capitalise these concerns."
I really doubt there's much in it without trust, and as we don't really know (specifically) what real world businesses do with our data, or exactly how mendacious that so-called "privacy" policy is, I suspect many are as unlikely to trust Grasping Shithead 'A' as they are Grasping Shithead 'B'. I personally never trust a word given on privacy, as its all too obvious that a) the language is evidently couched to mislead, b) there is little or no effective enforcement or intelligent regulation, c) there is zero political will to create such improved legislation or to ensure knuckles are broken when lines are crossed. All the dickheads in goverment care about is that the economy appears to grow, and if our private lives are fodder for that, so be it.
Until there is some evidence privacy is taken seriously (NOT the ICO version of seriously), I'll treat them all as lying bastards in the same way as I distrust fluffy waffle badges like 'fair trade' and the 'rainforest alliance'.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019