Difference between revisions of "Privacy Value"
(→References) |
(→Context) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Context== | ==Context== | ||
| − | Timothy | + | Timothy Ruff |
| − | + | "For a paltry $50/month, Gen Z will download a tracking app on their phone that captures 'nearly everything they do on their mobile devices for as long as they keep the app installed, creating an extensive dataset that clients can query.'" I don't have an ethical problem with this. If someone wants to be an exhibitionist with their own behavioral data, and fully consent to it, that's their prerogative. It is sad to see, however, the cultural shift that accepts and encourages this... | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | "For a paltry $50/month, Gen Z will download a tracking app on their phone that captures 'nearly everything they do on their mobile devices for as long as they keep the app installed, creating an extensive dataset that clients can query.'" | ||
| − | + | Fred Bingham | |
| − | + | Gen Z is lining up to download third-party trackers and sell their data. Yes, you heard that right. Forget about CIPA litigation and NOYB for a moment. They were a bad dream. | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | Gen Z is lining up to download third-party trackers and sell their data. Yes, you heard that right. | ||
| − | |||
| − | Forget about CIPA litigation and NOYB for a moment. They were a bad dream. | ||
The next generation is the least worried about privacy (see: https://lnkd.in/ghFNqMxW) and are eager to share their behavioral data with adtech and marketing agencies --- for a price --- a rather modest price, as it turns out. | The next generation is the least worried about privacy (see: https://lnkd.in/ghFNqMxW) and are eager to share their behavioral data with adtech and marketing agencies --- for a price --- a rather modest price, as it turns out. | ||
| Line 38: | Line 22: | ||
As a data privacy lawyer, this feels like a shocking generational shift in our perspective about privacy. | As a data privacy lawyer, this feels like a shocking generational shift in our perspective about privacy. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Paul Knowles | Paul Knowles | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
In almost every advanced analytics use case, the client will seek access to rich, aggregated datasets that inevitably contain personal information. That’s acceptable — provided those datasets exclude all personally identifiable information (PII). | In almost every advanced analytics use case, the client will seek access to rich, aggregated datasets that inevitably contain personal information. That’s acceptable — provided those datasets exclude all personally identifiable information (PII). | ||
| Line 90: | Line 32: | ||
We must maintain this ontological separation rigorously in every client-facing or publicly accessible dataset. No exposure of the Data Layer should ever permit identity resolution, regardless of the sophistication of downstream analytics or the commercial value of the insight. | We must maintain this ontological separation rigorously in every client-facing or publicly accessible dataset. No exposure of the Data Layer should ever permit identity resolution, regardless of the sophistication of downstream analytics or the commercial value of the insight. | ||
| − | |||
| − | + | To be crystal clear: | |
| + | * Personal Layer = identifiable attributes (e.g., names, social security numbers, contact details, national IDs) | ||
| + | * Data Layer = de-identified but contextually rich datasets (e.g., sleep duration trends, app feature usage, content engagement levels, energy consumption habits, time-of-day activity preferences) | ||
| + | |||
| + | We must maintain this ontological separation rigorously in every client-facing or publicly accessible dataset. No exposure of the Data Layer should ever permit identity resolution, regardless of the sophistication of downstream analytics or the commercial value of the insight. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Simon Burden | Simon Burden | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Is there an externality at play at all? Does collecting intimate levels of data about one person (with their consent, and paying them), then make it easier to target another person with equivalent attributes who does not want to be tracked and is not paid? | Is there an externality at play at all? Does collecting intimate levels of data about one person (with their consent, and paying them), then make it easier to target another person with equivalent attributes who does not want to be tracked and is not paid? | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Michael Leahy | Michael Leahy | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Correlation might matter = who knows? I suspect the "real" issue is that "permission" is often illusory as one must provide data if they wish to use the associated service. More tragic, government can buy data that is "commercially available that it would need a warrant to collect itself. The breadth of potential data sources is innumerable and beyond the average person's comprehension according to several Pew Research polls. If the issue were as simple as a contractual meeting of the minds, this issue would not exist IMO. | Correlation might matter = who knows? I suspect the "real" issue is that "permission" is often illusory as one must provide data if they wish to use the associated service. More tragic, government can buy data that is "commercially available that it would need a warrant to collect itself. The breadth of potential data sources is innumerable and beyond the average person's comprehension according to several Pew Research polls. If the issue were as simple as a contractual meeting of the minds, this issue would not exist IMO. | ||
…more | …more | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Alex Wakeland | Alex Wakeland | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
The people they surveyed might be “lining up,” but in the real world, my kids use fake names online and actively avoid apps that track them. I seriously doubt participation will be anywhere near what they’re projecting. | The people they surveyed might be “lining up,” but in the real world, my kids use fake names online and actively avoid apps that track them. I seriously doubt participation will be anywhere near what they’re projecting. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Steven McCown | Steven McCown | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Alex, I totally agree. The problem is that we have a surveillance capitalism (sorry, 'targeted advertising') network driving the internet and many people don't know what to do. Many of those would rather get $50 for being tracked than $0 for still being tracked... | Alex, I totally agree. The problem is that we have a surveillance capitalism (sorry, 'targeted advertising') network driving the internet and many people don't know what to do. Many of those would rather get $50 for being tracked than $0 for still being tracked... | ||
Revision as of 11:20, 25 May 2025
Meme
Users seem to value their Privacy, but at a very low value compared to convenience.
Context
Timothy Ruff "For a paltry $50/month, Gen Z will download a tracking app on their phone that captures 'nearly everything they do on their mobile devices for as long as they keep the app installed, creating an extensive dataset that clients can query.'" I don't have an ethical problem with this. If someone wants to be an exhibitionist with their own behavioral data, and fully consent to it, that's their prerogative. It is sad to see, however, the cultural shift that accepts and encourages this...
Fred Bingham
Gen Z is lining up to download third-party trackers and sell their data. Yes, you heard that right. Forget about CIPA litigation and NOYB for a moment. They were a bad dream.
The next generation is the least worried about privacy (see: https://lnkd.in/ghFNqMxW) and are eager to share their behavioral data with adtech and marketing agencies --- for a price --- a rather modest price, as it turns out.
For a paltry $50/month, Gen Z will download a tracking app on their phone that captures “nearly everything they do on their mobile devices for as long as they keep the app installed, creating an extensive dataset that clients can query,” according to Generation Lab (https://lnkd.in/gZcUH2xE).
Per Generation Lab’s privacy policy, this includes identifiers, employment information, financial information, protected classes, transaction history, geolocation, call recordings, inferences, and other data categories.
Is this data collection legal? The privacy disclosures are transparent and Generation Lab claims compliant with all relevant privacy regulations, including the GDPR and CCPA.
Is this data collection ethical? There’s an arm’s length transaction, so... Probably?
As a data privacy lawyer, this feels like a shocking generational shift in our perspective about privacy.
Paul Knowles
In almost every advanced analytics use case, the client will seek access to rich, aggregated datasets that inevitably contain personal information. That’s acceptable — provided those datasets exclude all personally identifiable information (PII).
To be crystal clear: - Personal Layer = identifiable attributes (e.g., names, social security numbers, contact details, national IDs)
- Data Layer = de-identified but contextually rich datasets (e.g., sleep duration trends, app feature usage, content engagement levels, energy consumption habits, time-of-day activity preferences)
We must maintain this ontological separation rigorously in every client-facing or publicly accessible dataset. No exposure of the Data Layer should ever permit identity resolution, regardless of the sophistication of downstream analytics or the commercial value of the insight.
To be crystal clear:
- Personal Layer = identifiable attributes (e.g., names, social security numbers, contact details, national IDs)
- Data Layer = de-identified but contextually rich datasets (e.g., sleep duration trends, app feature usage, content engagement levels, energy consumption habits, time-of-day activity preferences)
We must maintain this ontological separation rigorously in every client-facing or publicly accessible dataset. No exposure of the Data Layer should ever permit identity resolution, regardless of the sophistication of downstream analytics or the commercial value of the insight.
Simon Burden
Is there an externality at play at all? Does collecting intimate levels of data about one person (with their consent, and paying them), then make it easier to target another person with equivalent attributes who does not want to be tracked and is not paid?
Michael Leahy
Correlation might matter = who knows? I suspect the "real" issue is that "permission" is often illusory as one must provide data if they wish to use the associated service. More tragic, government can buy data that is "commercially available that it would need a warrant to collect itself. The breadth of potential data sources is innumerable and beyond the average person's comprehension according to several Pew Research polls. If the issue were as simple as a contractual meeting of the minds, this issue would not exist IMO. …more
Alex Wakeland
The people they surveyed might be “lining up,” but in the real world, my kids use fake names online and actively avoid apps that track them. I seriously doubt participation will be anywhere near what they’re projecting.
Steven McCown
Alex, I totally agree. The problem is that we have a surveillance capitalism (sorry, 'targeted advertising') network driving the internet and many people don't know what to do. Many of those would rather get $50 for being tracked than $0 for still being tracked...
