Google/Facebook: Do-Not-Track Threatens CA Economy 363
theodp writes "Google and Facebook are warning legislators of dire consequences if California passes a 'do-not-track' bill. The proposed law would require companies doing online business in the Golden State to offer an 'opt-out' privacy mechanism for consumers. Senate Bill 761 'would create an unnecessary, unenforceable and unconstitutional regulatory burden on Internet commerce,' reads the sky-is-falling protest letter bearing the stamp-of-disapproval from Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Amex, Acxiom, Experian, Allstate, Time-Warner, MPAA, ESA and others. 'The measure would negatively affect consumers who have come to expect rich content and free services through the Internet, and would make them more vulnerable to security threats.'"
MPAA and Google (Score:4, Insightful)
It's actually an interesting thing among slashthink. This is one thing Microsoft is doing right. You don't see Microsoft among the privacy invasive companies like MPAA, Time-Warner, Google, Facebook, ESA etc.. That's because they don't want to track your every movement. Microsoft sells you software. You buy it, they're happy, and you don't lose your privacy. Still most here think MS is evil and Google is some kind of white knight. Well, a few quotes [businessinsider.com].. Eric Schmidt: "We try very hard to look like we're out of control. But in fact the company is very measured. And that's part of our secret.". And Schmidt [slashdot.org]: "If I look at enough of your messaging and your location, and use artificial intelligence, we can predict where you are going to go
MPAA with them? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lesson one: there is no free lunch (Score:4, Insightful)
Lesson two: If it looks like there is a free lunch, think again. You're losing something worth more than cash up front.
Re:MPAA and Google (Score:0, Insightful)
Then, perhaps they should stop using NDA's for every bloody thing they do. Oh, that's right. They aren't one of us "little people" (formerly known as peasants).
Anyway, even slashthink gave up on the idea that Google is some kind of white knight a long time ago. And only the gullible were convinced by Google's "Do No Evil" motto. Actually, a good rule of thumb is, take whatever positive messages a corporation is giving out (or politician, for that matter) and realize that they are going to do the opposite.
Google: "Do No Evil" - they do evil all the time and are turning into a corporate version of the STASI
Bush: "Ownership society" - only the rich really own anything now, the rest of us at best have the illusion of ownership
Obama: "Change" - we are getting the same shit we got under Bush
CAPTCHA: "scraping" - how appropriate
Translation (Score:3, Insightful)
Translation: "Our business model is founded on doing stuff to consumers that they don't want. Please let us continue doing it."
Re:Consumers (Score:5, Insightful)
Silly (Score:5, Insightful)
'Opt-out' is kind of pointless anyway because it will require a cookie to say you've opted out, which can be used to track you. The only law which would make sense is requiring people to opt-in to being tracked.
Re:On the one hand, they're right (Score:5, Insightful)
The worst sites for me are the sites that have millions of electronic component part numbers listed on thousands of pages, but that don't sell any of these parts. WTF???!!!??
Of course, I'm looking for actual parts because I produce actual stuff to sell.
Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
The solution will not be found in the law; it will be found be returning to a peer-to-peer Internet and leaving this "consumers getting services from corporations" model behind us. Sadly, a peer-to-peer Internet would require users who took the time to actually learn about their computers, which I doubt we will actually see any time soon.
Wait what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets forget about free services, why do you need to store my info if I pay for your rich content service. I'm more then happy to enter my CC details every time I need to renew your service.
Sony? If my personal info is not stored anywhere how am I at risk to security threats?
it is opt out (Score:5, Insightful)
I have said many bad things about Google, and now I add to that Google is officially a bloated and lazy firm, not capable of meaningful innovation. If it were it would not be pulling the 'lost jobs' argument. Such an argument is only made of irrelevant companies such as US auto makers and book publishers.
Google, and to a lesser extent, facbook has made huge sums of money through consumer ignorance. What this is going to require that they share a bit more of those proceeds with the end user. Yes it will effect profits, and conceivably it will effect proficts enough that they will get out of the business, or leave california. Perhaps they can move to a desperate state like mississippi, and perhaps enough employee will follow. The reality is that California knows it has something that exists in few other places, and can enforce a code of conduct on the companies there. Othwise everyone would move 400 miles east to Nevada.
heh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wait what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets forget about free services, why do you need to store my info if I pay for your rich content service.
Probably because your information is worth more than what you are willing to pay for the service.
Re:MPAA and Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, not really. First of all, you buy it and you do lose your privacy. Microsoft has been caught playing all kinds of tricks over the network. And it was among the first to try it. Others followed its example. A more accurate characterization is that if it can get away with it, it will.
But that's only one, rather generic, thing to worry about. What makes Microsoft special is its efforts to monetize DRM. This is something it has been building towards for over a decade now. It's naïve to think that software buyers are Microsoft's only customer. In fact you do see Microsoft hanging out with the likes of MPAA and Time-Warner. You're just not invited to the table.
Re:Translation (Score:4, Insightful)
Another, more philosophical issue is that the Internet was originally envisioned as a peer to peer system, with people around the world communicating with each other and working together. The fact that we are now speaking in terms of "consumers" who seek "services," and that those "services" must be paid for by tracking "consumers" is an indication of the failure of that ancient ideal. Instead of empowering people, the Internet has just reinforced the consumer oriented mindset; rather than solving problems on their own or working with others to find a solution, people just wait for a service that provides the solution to them and never bother to use their own minds.
Re:Yeah well (Score:3, Insightful)
People use the "cool" stuff because it is there and does not cost money. If there was a monetary charge for the same thing and no one used it, is that the fault of the people or the business offering. Do the people really lose in that situation? The business that does offer what someone wants and people are willing pay for it will be the winner for both groups.
Re:Yeah well (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't that stuff isn't free, it's that the costs are purposely hidden.
Re:Consumers (Score:4, Insightful)
The change is from "Netizen" to "Product". You're not the consumer - companies your info is sold to are. You are the product being consumed.
Re:Yeah well (Score:4, Insightful)
"Everyone wants cool stuff. But nothing is free. It is just basic economics."
Fine then charge me for it. I don't want to give up my privacy.
Looking at the endorsers, all the bad guys are on. (Score:5, Insightful)
The usual slimeballs are behind this:
If all those organizations went bust, the world would be a better place. Applying some pain to all of them is a good first step.
Re:MPAA with them? (Score:3, Insightful)
The end user is not Google's customer.
We are the product they sell to their customers, who are the advertisers.
The WWW as it is presently composed consists of a lot of end users, a scattering of small operators, and a handful of very wealthy owners of the Central Servers. It's so 'classic 19th century capitalist' that it screams at us, but so few people seem to understand that the entities that own the big servers are not our friends.
Re:MPAA and Google (Score:5, Insightful)
You're half right. Microsoft is notorious for the very thing you claim they don't do. They are in bed with the MPAA/RIAA, and a copy of Windows phones home more times than a kid at his first day of summer camp. Google isn't a white knight because they're a corporation in it for the profit. All corporations are evil. They do not care about us, nor do they care who they exploit to get more money.
The quote "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place" reminds me of the position people take regarding privacy and over-reaching government snooping that violates the 4th Amendment. "If you're not doing anything illegal, you should have nothing to hide." And like that statement... It's not about what you do, it's about the power I have over my own life. I shouldn't be at the mercy of tracking software and invasive snooping simply because I'm online. It'd be like every time you went to Wal Mart someone who worked for them or one of the products in the store would follow you around, recording everything you did. What the "do not track" option does is as simple as saying "let me shop in peace." You will know what I buy when I check out or when I make a transaction. Seeing what I pick up and put back on the shelf is really of no concern. Stop selling it to marketeers and attempting to put me in a box that says "likes pie and Febreeze. Let's market Febreeze tasting pie to him!"
Re:MPAA with them? (Score:4, Insightful)
This:
Shareholder: Do !
Board: Sir, that would be evil, we can't do that for the sake of our customers!
Shareholder: Do it, or I withdraw my capital, and this company dies!/Do it, and I'll double your salaries personally!
Board: All in favor!