Now you see...
...what they should do is say you can sell someones personal info, but that person gets 50% of the take.
Then it becomes a whole other ball game.
Google has become the only browser marker to explicitly join lobbyists opposing a proposed law giving consumers the legal right to keep companies from tracking them online. The giant has put its name to an alarmist letter signed by 30 other organizations, trade groups and individual companies, objecting to the passage of a Do- …
"SB 761 an act of blatant discrimination"
so now you know anyone signing that later is stealing money from your data property , making illegal derivative works and basically openly committing commercial piracy and illegal profiteering from YOUR data streams, perhaps they should be punished for this piracy and forced to pay per download as per other prior US piracy cases.
what do you mean NoneSuch, only get 50% of the take.
it's your valuable data and all your 100% profit You care to set as the going rate or otherwise greater, plus any conditions you might wish to set for the contract.
such as , daily compound interest for each 24 hours passed without payment in cash rounded to the nearest $,£,yen,etc and in person by the executive board chair person at your door at 4pm every friday. :D
I doubt anyone's data is going to be worth very much on its own. A few pence or a few pounds maybe? I seriously doubt the loss of privacy would make it anywhere near to being worth it.
Of course, when you're a big company like Google, who'll be selling it in the millions, then its valuable indeed. Especially with the likes of Facebook doing such a good job of convincing so many people their information has so little value it doesn't matter what they do with it or who has access to it.
"No doubt, the Do-Not-Track law would also demand that web retailers all wear blue pants backwards and sing I'm a Yankee Doodle Dandy if the AG's office decided they should. "
My Chrystal Ball is indicating a coming Patent Armageddon between the IP claimants to "blue", "backward" and "sing"*.
* quite aside from the lawsuit the author deserves for the slander of Christina Aguilera's performance of the National Anthem at the Super Bowl. A reference to the verb "to sing" followed by a reference to a song! Seriously, could you be any more obvious.
It will get funny in the US too.
It boils down to explaining to smart Americans how dumb Europeans are, and explaining to dumb Americans that smart Europeans aren't actually so. Doesn't work very well when smart Americans talk to dumb Americans, but they have managed to pull it off before.
It's not all that difficult to avoid ... and ask yourself what they provide that you can't get elsewhere for the same price and learning curve, but without the invasion of privacy.
Marketers are the new "most hated" so-called professionals. If they all died tomorrow, I'd party all weekend.
No kidding. Who is going to opt-in to be tracked and pillaged?
The only way their model works is to track everyone while pretending to offer some opt-out system that...
a. doesn't work.
b. is stored in a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory behind a door that said "Beware of the tiger"
c. if you figure out how to opt-out, will opt you in again the first time you miss a hidden check box
Google most likely perceives what the ultimate regime will be demanded by the politicians and has wisely decided to participate so it can make it's views known, if not accepted.
The most important thing on the tracking agenda is mobile tracking of any kind without informed user consent.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019