- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
It is an increasingly common message from websites: browse for free - if you allow us to track your data and target you with personalised ads - if you don’t, hand over some cash.
The model is known as “consent or pay” and, while it may be becoming increasingly common, questions remain over whether it is ethical or even legal.
The UK data regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has launched a consultation on the practice - it will report its findings later this year.
“In principle, data protection law does not prohibit business models that involve ‘consent or pay,’” the ICO says on its website.
You must log in or register to comment.
“Don’t pay up and we’ll harvest your data. Pay up and we’ll still harvest your data, but in ways that we can plausibly deny we’re doing it.”
That’s the problem isn’t it.
I’d have no problem paying for privacy respecting access to websites that I used frequently except that I don’t trust them to keep their end of the deal.
Exactly. Fuck em.
Plus they can validate the data they harvest when you pay. They’ve got transactions and identity information once you pay.
By Betteridge’s law, the answer is no.
On a serious note, to the people who own these kinds of websites: find a more ethical way to make your money or go the fuck out of business.
“Should you have to pay for online privacy?”
This is the wrong question to ask. The obvious answer is no.
The real question to ask is: would you prefer to pay for an online service with currency, or with your private data?
We already do, with our time, irritation and reduced functionality.
I like the position held by NOYB: Providers of websites that show either a restricted ad-supported version or an unrestricted subscription-based version of the site should be required to offer a third option that is restricted and ad-free for a fee that equals the market value of the information sold to advertisers (usually a few cents per month and per user).
No privacy for poor people. Sounds about right.
We could go back to saying fuck them no service for you.
God forbid somebody pay for these services. Meanwhile the fuck big technology folks will screech at Google for running YouTube as a loss leader screaming anti trust.
No
We could just get offline and let the add monsters bully each other until they run out of funds.
The question remains: Why should someone pay the cost of providing you a service or hosting a website, if you won’t pay with money, your data, or by seeing ads?
They shouldn’t. They should close up shop, GTFO and never speak of it again. The End.
Taken to its logical conclusion, that would mean no more search engines, video or image hosting sites, or actually any websites that aren’t tied to a paid service, financed by taxes or donations, or provided by hobbyists as a pastime.
deleted by creator
Web services require someone’s work, time, and resources. That someone needs to eat.
The question boils down to: Who provides that someone with the means to live?I have zero problem paying an actual creator for their stuff. I do have an issue with paying exorbitant prices (whether dollars, ads or my data) to a billion dollar company who is only in it for the money.
I agree.
I’m perfectly fine with almost all of the commercial web disappearing, except the stuff that actually justifies a price tag, and it mostly being hobbyist content.
But that’s really not the issue. Tracking users across sites should not be legal, and should not be possible to consent to.
BBC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for BBC News:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
