618
US can’t ban TikTok for security reasons while ignoring Temu, other apps, TikTok argues (arstechnica.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
150 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 64 points 2 years ago (9 children)

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

Actually, that time was 40 years ago.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years 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).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent