That’s not the deal though. It’s not an exchange of data for the use of the product, like you would exchange money for a product or service. The product is offered free of charge, and alongside that they collect whatever they can get away with. There’s no consideration, there’s no proportionality, it doesn’t meet the basic tenets of contract law.
Data companies thrive in this hazy grey zone where regulations haven’t been made. However, when you compare what they do to anything else, it’s clearly unreasonable. If I invite you into my home, that doesn’t mean I give you permission to take the strawberries from my garden. If you invite me into your home, that doesn’t mean you get permission to go through my wallet and take photos of everything inside.
It’s getting worse, look at Microsoft now. You pay them for the software and they still take your data.
Data needs to be regulated, such that users are fairly compensated and more properly in control of it. Either that, or it must be completely open - Google can collect the data, but their raw database must be freely available to everyone. Lobbying has proven effective for Google et al, however there is some small hope because law makers themselves are also the victims - everyone is. They just need to realise the true value of what’s being taken from them.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but your analogy of inviting someone into your home is flawed. You did agree to them collecting some anonymous data just by using it, and the browser history usage is opt-in.
Their products are not free, they just don’t cost money. If you don’t agree with that policy, don’t use their products. I would also add that this is their business model for most of their products (which are undeniably extremely popular, because they’re good).
Maps, Search, Chrome, YouTube, etc are all really good products that you pay for by letting them use some of your data, but not the more sensitive parts, in my opinion.
I disagree that their “raw database” should be public. That seems like a terrible idea. I would much rather share my clicks and geolocation than pay for the service (I don’t, but I would prefer that model).
I do however agree that data needs to be regulated, and that users solely own all their own data.
It actually really, really isn’t. Just try blocking Google services using an ad blocker and see how many websites don’t work. How Google track who you bank with, where you have social media accounts and basically everything they can with Captcha. If you don’t connect to google.com, gstatic.com and maybe fonts.google.com then so much stuff online simply does not work.
No amount of regulation would help if the users themselves don’t value their data. As far as they are concerned, these products are free. They might be wrong, but that’s irrelevant here, the relevant part is that to them their data is worthless so they don’t care. We need more education on this, not regulation. Or rather we need both.
That’s not the deal though. It’s not an exchange of data for the use of the product, like you would exchange money for a product or service. The product is offered free of charge, and alongside that they collect whatever they can get away with. There’s no consideration, there’s no proportionality, it doesn’t meet the basic tenets of contract law.
Data companies thrive in this hazy grey zone where regulations haven’t been made. However, when you compare what they do to anything else, it’s clearly unreasonable. If I invite you into my home, that doesn’t mean I give you permission to take the strawberries from my garden. If you invite me into your home, that doesn’t mean you get permission to go through my wallet and take photos of everything inside.
It’s getting worse, look at Microsoft now. You pay them for the software and they still take your data.
Data needs to be regulated, such that users are fairly compensated and more properly in control of it. Either that, or it must be completely open - Google can collect the data, but their raw database must be freely available to everyone. Lobbying has proven effective for Google et al, however there is some small hope because law makers themselves are also the victims - everyone is. They just need to realise the true value of what’s being taken from them.
I think you mean “tenets of contract law”, rather than tenants. Not trying to be “that” guy, I had to look it up myself.
Nice one.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but your analogy of inviting someone into your home is flawed. You did agree to them collecting some anonymous data just by using it, and the browser history usage is opt-in.
Their products are not free, they just don’t cost money. If you don’t agree with that policy, don’t use their products. I would also add that this is their business model for most of their products (which are undeniably extremely popular, because they’re good).
Maps, Search, Chrome, YouTube, etc are all really good products that you pay for by letting them use some of your data, but not the more sensitive parts, in my opinion.
I disagree that their “raw database” should be public. That seems like a terrible idea. I would much rather share my clicks and geolocation than pay for the service (I don’t, but I would prefer that model).
I do however agree that data needs to be regulated, and that users solely own all their own data.
Oh yeah no problem, just be alive in 2023 and don’t use any Google products. Totally an easy choice! /s
Yes, it very much is.
It actually really, really isn’t. Just try blocking Google services using an ad blocker and see how many websites don’t work. How Google track who you bank with, where you have social media accounts and basically everything they can with Captcha. If you don’t connect to google.com, gstatic.com and maybe fonts.google.com then so much stuff online simply does not work.
No amount of regulation would help if the users themselves don’t value their data. As far as they are concerned, these products are free. They might be wrong, but that’s irrelevant here, the relevant part is that to them their data is worthless so they don’t care. We need more education on this, not regulation. Or rather we need both.