Will Users Get a Slice of the "Big Data" Pie? 123
curtwoodward writes "Better healthcare, more efficient government, cheaper goods and services — it's all possible in the age of 'big data.' According to the big companies hoping to make a killing off all that information, anyway. But will the people generating that valuable data — Joe and Jane Consumer — ever get a piece of the action? A few startups are trying to establish first-party marketplaces for personal data, compensating users directly for contributing high-quality information about themselves. The World Economic Forum is also involved, hoping that one day, 'a person's data would be equivalent to their money ... controlled, managed, exchanged and accounted for just like personal banking services operate today.' But some entrepreneurs think it might be too late in the developed world, where a consumer's data fingerprint is already very well documented."
Short answer: (Score:2)
Long Answer (Score:3, Funny)
No.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bing Rewards isn't available yet in your country or region.
Funny, _all_ of Google's services are available in my country. Guess I'll stick with the lesser evit, then.
Re: (Score:2)
Short answer... no.. (Score:1)
Long answer... No fucking way are you crazy?
"You, and I, are not in the big club."
We'll be lucky to know the data was gathered and exists. Let alone what it says. Or have a say in what it says...
creepy... (captcha:warrants) how does it DO that...
Those selling "Big Disks" . . . (Score:1)
. . . will get the most from the "Big Data" Pie . . . all that needs to be stored somewhere . . .
. . . is anyone selling "Big Data Clouds" already . . . ?
Re: (Score:2)
IBM's attempts to do exactly that appear to occupy about 30% of Slashdot's ad space these days... At this point, they'll probably have to move a few mainframes just to pay their abstract-but-inspiring-clip-art bills.
flowchart... (Score:1)
are you in the CEO class? ---> yes... SURE DEAL
\
\
\---> no... screw you.
Welcome to Serfdom 2.0, scab.
I've often wondered (Score:1)
Why in the US (western ingeneral) companies get the benefit of the doubt and people are seen as kooks. If Google say it, it must be true; if Tom, Dick, or Harry say it, take it with a grain of salt.
Anyone/companies not interested in privacy, people first before profit,is to be avoided.
Re: (Score:2)
As quoth the dubious but attractively glib folk wisdom: "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?"...
Re: (Score:2)
Because major companies tend to care about their reputation more than your average whackjob.
Individuals with a track record of making smart, relevant statements are treated with plenty of respect around here. Of course they're mostly ignored because $$$ moves things in this part of the world, not respect. But we still give them the props they deserve.
Similarly, we don't really trust anything some fly-by-night company we've never heard of throws out. Companies have to earn respect just as much as people.
T
Already there (Score:1)
Companies are increasingly getting more access to peoples money with "services" like automatic bill pay, fancy non-check checking, direct deposit, etc... The goal is to give everyone easy access to your money with minimal intervention from the owner of that money. Personal data is already
Damn you Pavlov! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Damn you Pavlov! (Score:4, Funny)
This is because of all the collusion going on behind the scenes with Big Meter. They've intentionally calibrated their BS detectors with a low threshold so that we'll all always be wary of other Big interests.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just Big Idiocy at work.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. I really get annoyed when I hear Big stuck before anything, because it has connotations of somebody being oppressed, with immediate injected bias against the subject of the discussion.
You should be paid for watching television (Score:2)
What is more likely to happen though is for game shows to be made into video game form, and then when you play the video game, you can earn money if the game is competitive. I was considering making an online poker site where you never deposit money, but at the end of the month, people who won tournaments share in a real money prize pool. The legality of online poker in the United States thoug
Re: (Score:1)
Not that I care enough to look at that data (or to even look at what the data is). So for all I know, I don't actually have access to "the good stuff".
An intolerable precedent. (Score:1)
If it is allowed that a person's data has monetary value, then it surely follows that the person may elect not to sell it. People will never be allowed to opt out.
Re: (Score:2)
It is allowed that people's labor has value --- yet few are in the position to elect not to sell it. Unless you're independently wealthy, you're pretty much forced to sell your labor to benefit those who *are* independently wealthy (and set the terms of employment to benefit themselves and their self-reinforcing ability to dictate the terms on which you must sell your labor). So, even if your data has theoretically "withholdable" value, in practice you may not find much success getting groceries, renting an
Well, we are fucked... (Score:5, Insightful)
If "'a person's data would be equivalent to their money ... controlled, managed, exchanged and accounted for just like personal banking services operate today.'" is the optimistic-pie-in-the-sky vision of the future, I think it's safe to say that we are 100% fucked.
Financial services is not... exactly... a shining beacon of customer service, egalitarian contracting, and transparency, and the deal gets worse the smaller your scale. If that's the ideal, the outcome seems likely to be grim indeed.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, that sentence is one of the scariest things I've read in a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, it's like Bitcoin where instead of cryptographic keys, the public ledger and proof-of-work you have the honor system.
What could possibly go wrong?
I don't want a piece of the action. (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of giving me a piece of the action - give me the option not to be part of the action in the first place. My privacy and ownership of my own data and control over who can have it and do what with it is infinitely more valuable than a couple dollars.
Re: (Score:1)
if you're asking the wolves for the option not to be eaten, you're an idiot. best thing to do is protect yourself. nobody else will watch over your affairs better than you.
They already do (Score:5, Insightful)
Discounts on groceries, gasoline, hotels, airline flights, free meals, free email, social network accounts, streaming music, streaming TV. We're getting compensated for our data, and those who do not participate are both less compensated and less tracked.
Now, if you're wondering whether individuals will become the sellers of their data for their financial gain - no. The value in data is in large aggregation of both quantitative (age, sex, ethnicity) and qualitative (likes, interests, behaviours) so that groups can be targeted for whatever an entity is looking for. You are not a beautiful jewel in a sea of dull pebbles, and even if you were you're value in paving the road to advertising is just that of a dull pebble. You don't go buy your stone a pebble at a time, you buy it from someone who has a quarry full and can give it to you by the truckload.
The value in personal data lies in the value many have in aggregate (get it - stones, aggregate - Ha!). It's not surprising that we will never find value in our personal data except to us, and those who market will have to have billions of data points. The value isn't great enough to warrant negotiation with every individual.
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much. At the extreme, "offer walls" basically offer Joe and Jane in-game currencies or other bonuses (depending on where used), if they are willing to pick a sponsor's ad(s) on it and watch videos, give their address and email and phone-#, take surveys...
So yeah, you can already get a slice of the pie. Just don't expect a substantial one unless you really like the service you find those ads on (you probably won't get much actual cash for them), and do expect to feel dirty and less secure-in-privacy
Re:They already do (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly right.
I worked in Big Data on a project involving medical records. We harvested medical data from millions of unsuspecting patients, thanks to a probably-unread clause in hospitals' privacy policy. Patients never knew that we had their data, and we never actually paid anybody for it, to my knowledge. The end product (which the providing hospitals got free (I think) access to) was a system for making drug research far faster and cheaper, and tracking doctors that had statistically-poor outcomes, and tracking hereditary disease, and even predicting diagnoses. The implications are pretty clear: cheaper and better health care for everybody, at the cost of privacy for medical data (which was anonymized, salted, hashed, encrypted, anonymized again, and stored in a secure cluster, to comply with all the madness of regulation).
Everything about Big Data relies on the assumption that having more complete information allows a particular business to improve efficiency. For advertising and medicine, this is pretty obvious. Just saying a brand name to the right person at the right time makes a sale. A doctor who can see the symptoms and outcomes of tens of millions of patients can better match a particular patient's case with an earlier example. If that assumption holds true, Big Data is useful.
This ultimately boils down to the issue of anecdotal vs. statistical evidence. Each individual's information is an anecdote, and holds value to the erson (or people) it relates to, but the anecdote doesn't really provide insight for the future. On the other hand, statistical information is only useful on a large scale with a large sample, collected from people who know little enough about the project to alter its outcome. As you said, the statistical information is worth buying, but anecdotes aren't.
Re: (Score:3)
I have a reasonable idea of when I don't want to be tracked and how to mostly avoid it. That said, most of my info I freely distribute. I'm not really a slave to commercialism, so I'm not heavily swayed by advertising. However, if I'm going to see ads, I'd rather see a bunch of ads for stuff I'm interested in than a page filled with "collectible" plates, Cialis, and feminine care products. If I get advertising which is appropriate and engaging (entertaining) in return for stuff that I'd be happy making publ
Re: (Score:2)
Kroger knows what kind of bread I buy and chips in $10-$20/mo for gas.
Krogers has probably raised your bread and chips price by $10-$20/mo to cover this exchange (well, spread over all your groceries, assuming you buy more than bread and chips). And you do realize that all those "amazing" "discounts" for loyalty card holders are just fabricated by jacking up the "non-card" price by several dollars? Don't think that the Invisible Markets Fairy is somehow assuring you're getting a fair deal in this exchange --- you're just getting shafted for your detailed buying data so Kroger
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I have no illusion that Kroger - or anyplace else with a reward program - makes their money back somewhere. I also shop at Walmart - they may do shitty things to some vendors, but I have no worries that Kellog or General Mills is getting put out of business by the Waltons - and I know what market value is for much of what I buy. Kroger is close to me (6 blocks), so it has certain cost advantages for small purchases; their meat is of higher quality than most other non-specialty vendors in my area and, wh
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, for now you can still game the system --- the store pricing models are designed to maximize profit off the "average" customer, so if you're willing/able to stock up, opportunistically identify and take/avoid the good/bad bargains, you can nullify (or even benefit from) the pricing chicanery.
Of course, it's game over for that once the stores roll out the logical goal of fine-grained individualized monitoring: the truly "personalized shopping experience," that Amazon has gotten some flak for flirting wit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That word. I don't think it means what you think it means. Now, if you mean "improve sales"...
And taking that same person at the right time and showing them that generic X is equivalent to brand name except for the label and the much cheape
Re: (Score:2)
Now, if you mean "improve sales"...
No, I mean efficiency. If your main business is sales, then it means improving sales without raising expenses, but Big Data analysis is useful elsewhere, too. If you'd actually read my comment without the gross prejudice, you'd find several examples of improving efficiency in medicine - more accurately detecting trends, showing comorbidity, and finding doctors that ordered excessive tests. Inefficiencies like that are hard to see individually, but in aggregate, outliers are much easier to see.
Some examples
Re: (Score:2)
Everything about Big Data relies on the assumption that having more complete information allows a particular business to improve efficiency. For advertising and medicine, this is pretty obvious.
Training predictive agents on data sets, large and small, for the purpose of decision making is nothing new. These types of systems have been known in AI circles for decades now. The problem was and remains the relative inability of these systems to perform well on problems where the state of the system is non-deterministic or stochastic [wikipedia.org]. The classic examples of predictive AIs were always in well understood areas with little randomness such as agriculture or medical diagnostics. However, many real world pro
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Discounts on groceries, gasoline, hotels, airline flights, free meals, free email, social network accounts, streaming music, streaming TV. We're getting compensated for our data, and those who do not participate are both less compensated and less tracked.
How much of these "discounts" would people be availing themselves of if their spending habits weren't being engineered by Big Data et. al. in the first place?
Or did you want that house full of pointless crap and that extra 30 lbs. of fat?
Re: (Score:2)
> "How much of these "discounts" would people be availing themselves of if their spending habits weren't being engineered by Big Data et. al. in the first place?"
None, because they wouldn't exist. Hard to avail myself of a discount that isn't available.
But if you mean how many of those things would I purchase if I wasn't supposedly being brainwashed by whatever companies you imagine are brainwashing us to want things? All of them that I buy now, I'm pretty sure. I need to eat, so that's groceries and mea
Bunch of fools (Score:4, Insightful)
Individually your data is worth nothing, when summarized it provides trends and statistics, when integrated it can vastly improve the healthcare system and make the government run smoother.
The first market personal data collectors seem like fly by night type people who don't really know what they're doing. I mean the very concept of willingly giving data for money screams put your best foot forward, greatly skewing the data and making it worthless.
Google already started a version of it (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Big Data (Score:2)
We give you a decentralized network self healing near instantly even when whole cities disappearing off the map, and you put your data in a centralized data silo, then market it as "Big Data". It's not outright stupid, just a bit ignorant, eh?
I've said it before, I'll say it again: (Score:3)
Whenever the title to a story on Slashdot is a question, the answer is (almost always) no.
Re: (Score:1)
Comedy Club quotes.... (Score:2)
Will Users Get a Slice of the "Big Data" Pie?
Users ARE the 'pie'. Just who are you trying to kid?
Nope (Score:3)
Tail wags dog? (Score:1)
DId you get a slice of increased productivity ? (Score:3)
Productivity of the average American worker went through the roof since 1979:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/speedup-americans-working-harder-charts [motherjones.com]
http://www.ibtimes.com/us-worker-productivity-rising-faster-wage-growth-1114871 [ibtimes.com]
Did your inflation-adjusted paycheck? Oh hell no, you're (the average American ) treading water.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3220 [cbpp.org]
http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-profits-just-hit-an-all-time-high-wages-just-hit-an-all-time-low-2012-6 [businessinsider.com]
and have been for decades... DECADES
OK then. All this cost savings is pocketed by billionaires , not passed on to you. The ONLY form in which it's ever passed on to ordinary people is at their own expense, e.g. Walmart prices and Walmart
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/03/1213437/-What-Walmart-Costs-Taxpayers [dailykos.com]
http://www.walmarteffectbook.com/ [walmarteffectbook.com]
So if you want to realize what any of the productivity gains / cost savings you've worked for and created, start a company, force everyone who works for you be to be part time, steal the benefits of THEIR increase in productivity, lobby your congresspig for tax breaks for the wealthy..... oh and shop at Walmart.
America is a nation of by and for billionaires, who fund our elections, occupy our political offices, write our laws and own our media. They do this for their own benefit and anything which does not effect their personal lives is not *real* and doesn't matter.
http://video.pbs.org/video/2296684923/ [pbs.org]
So no- it's not for you.
Now get back to work.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Not on your life ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Big data is nothing but a scam. No one will ever make money from this data, except the people who sell it.
The purchasers are suckers, just like people who pay spammers to send spam.
Re:Not on your life ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I actually agree with this to an extent and would mod you up had I points.
A lot of the alleged "intelligence" being pulled out of big data are merely correlational and of a unscientific sampling at that- example the bullshit about which states are unhappiest based on people's Twittering .
Upon this, as upon the credit default swaps and derivatives, an entire "science" of "big data" will be built. The chief and only certain beneficiaries will be the horseshit factories that churn this out out to the mathematically illiterate and experientially provincial.
In fact, since the data cannot be assumed to normally distributed and the variables in question independent of anything, including each other, most of mathematics CANNOT be used to analyze this data still less to predict future states of any system reified - and presumed to really exist- from that data.
Never mind though. Rest assured the asshole quants on working the case even now because while no KNOWLEDGE can be derived from it, a fuck of a lot of money sure can be had.
Still big data is interesting in some limited context and can be applied in useful ways to the betterment of applications, for instance.
But that's not what we're all about, is it ? We're all about putting some lipstick on that pig and selling it.
If you're the sorting type, it's only a matter of timing any Big Data fungus, er./.. I mean companies, as they crop up.
Re:Not on your life ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Big Data could mean, data from the LHC, or data from video analysis, or any number of other things.
Well it could mean a lot of htings. But in the context of TFA it is clear what definition of "Big Data" is relevant.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Say that to Amazon. After they started using their own data, they disbanded their entire staff of experts for recommendations. The computer algorithms were giving three times more sales and costing a fraction of the price of the salaries of the experts.
Say that to Google. When they made their translate program, they didn't use experts but used web-pages to learn translation. Or the auto-completion of queries. Or even pagerank itself.
Unscientific sampling? Big data is about the opposite of sampling. Samp
Re:Not on your life ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't really think so myself. Efficiency is the key thing to making "stuff" more affordable and therefore more ubiquitous. For example, efficiencies in semiconductor fabrication enabled personal computers to be affordable by the average joe, even really poor people, whereas it used to be only the very rich owned them. The same thing can be said for cars and Ford's original Model T.
One key part of this is economies of scale, which means you need to sell large quantities of something in order for it to be affordable by the masses. And subsequently, a key part of that is marketing. Marketing is expensive as hell, and goes into the cost of those goods. If big data makes marketing cheaper, then that savings will eventually (though not immediately) make its way to joe sixpack.
So yes, you as the producer of that data DO benefit, just the benefit isn't obvious.
For another perspective on that, you ought to read Bestiat's parable of the broken window. Basically, when you can save money on an expense, then that money can go towards something more useful elsewhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window [wikipedia.org]
This is exactly how the poor become wealthy. In spite of popular claim, the poor are in fact wealthier than they have ever been. Not by a little, but by a lot. Don't confuse money and income with wealth. By that I mean like what I stated above. It used to be that only the very rich owned cars, later TV's, and then later personal computers, later mobile phones (remember when car phones were neat?). A rich person from yesterday would be envious of the wealth that a poor person has today.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/john-stossel-on-the-poor-americas-poor-live-better-than-most-have-lived-through-history/ [mediaite.com]
TL;DR and summary: I have a hard time seeing big data as being a scam, but rather as being a benefit. You may lose a bit of privacy, but I don't think it's enough to satisfy say a nosy neighbor. And before the accusations fly; no, I'm not a paid shill. Hell, I wish I were, because then I could get paid to muse about something I already believed in anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
It used to be that only the very rich owned cars, later TV's, and then later personal computers, later mobile phones (remember when car phones were neat?). A rich person from yesterday would be envious of the wealth that a poor person has today.
So, a poor person has some shiny baubles --- a car to help them go to work for the rich, a TV to help them watch propaganda from the rich, a personal computer and mobile phone to keep them working for the rich 24/7. Yes, if you're happy being a slave with a giant shiny TV, then you might prefer being poor today to being rich a century ago. On the other hand, if you had some higher ideals --- a love of autonomy, freedom, self-actualization, intellectual expansion, etc., then you might rather be rich with the
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really see how I could be identified as a slave. Especially today where it's rather easy to get away with not working at all. Hell, I did that for several years. Through student grants and other whatnots I was getting paid to go to college. Look at that, intellectual expansion. Just yesterday I watched a rather shocking episode of game of thrones, but you're telling me that game of thrones is corporate propaganda to make me slave for the rich. Granted there are slaves in that show, I don't see the m
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really see how I could be identified as a slave. Especially today where it's rather easy to get away with not working at all. Hell, I did that for several years. Through student grants and other whatnots I was getting paid to go to college.
Well, it sounds like you don't really fall into the broader category of being poor in this country. Being "temporarily" poor while going to college --- before securing a solidly-above-median salary job --- isn't the same as being a career minimum wage worker, born to career minimum wage workers, with very little prospect of going to college in the first place (even if you're pretty smart).
but you're telling me that game of thrones is corporate propaganda to make me slave for the rich
It certainly isn't helping you to see the injustice in the system. And, if you're watching either the ads between, or th
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it sounds like you don't really fall into the broader category of being poor in this country. Being "temporarily" poor while going to college --- before securing a solidly-above-median salary job --- isn't the same as being a career minimum wage worker, born to career minimum wage workers, with very little prospect of going to college in the first place (even if you're pretty smart).
That's strange, since the whole time I was in school, I was well below the threshold of what the government defines as poverty.
It certainly isn't helping you to see the injustice in the system. And, if you're watching either the ads between, or the "news," you'll get a full-bore propaganda blast.
What injustice? Oh, you believe in the idea of social justice. Well, I don't, and let me tell you why: I believe in rewarding somebody who does something good. However I don't believe in rewarding anybody who hasn't done anything at all. Now consider the concept of TINSTAAFL. When you reward somebody for doing nothing, you've taken from somebody else. THAT is an injustice.
Only some of it; I enjoy watching a few shows myself. I'm more of a "live free or die" type. If you offered the trade: live as a poor person today, or a rich person before ubiquitous cars and TVs, I'd take the choice that gave me real personal autonomy over a shiny TV and a shitty Taylorized job.
That's the
Re: (Score:2)
That's strange, since the whole time I was in school, I was well below the threshold of what the government defines as poverty.
Well, that just shows the problem with trying to define "poverty" with the most simplistic way (annual income filed on a 1040-EZ). A billionaire who gives enough to charity to add up to $0 annual taxable income is not poor. A playboy frat kid coasting through college on daddy's money into a guaranteed high-dollar position at daddy's firm is not poor. While the simplistic "poverty line" definition is useful in some cases for generally-correct classification, there are certainly plenty of exceptional cases wh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I've already got the beard to be Amish... but I'm really not that much into blowing up my own worldly possessions (a bit too attached to the classic camera lens collection). I'm more partial to the Luddites --- which means blowing up the equipment used to reduce people to subservient interchangeable cogs in a corporate machine.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes because the luddites highly valued a world where even the clothes on your back were just plain shitty unless you were very rich.
To be frank, people like you don't support the poor at all. You think you do, but your goals and values would do nothing but make things more miserable for anybody who isn't rich.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you read much about the Luddites, aside from sophomoric propaganda setting them up as a straw man? Luddites weren't rich folks coming in to paternalistically interfere with the working classes based on some high-minded abstract idealism. They *were* the working class --- with a very direct "feet on the ground" experience of how technology (in the hands of the rich) was impacting their selves, their families, and their communities. Control over work was shifted entirely away from skilled craftsmen to in
Re: (Score:2)
My paychecks for being a double-agent deep-cover reverse-psychology corporate shill seem to be getting lost in the mail; I haven't received one yet. Can you please pass this complaint --- err, observation --- along to the Illuminati (whichever sect is currently in power), and ask them to please double-check their payroll database? My address may have changed since your recruitment mind-control ray last contacted me. Thanks!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Relatively cheap is the key to making stuff more ubiquitous. Having a good deal of *demand* is probably even a lot more important. Efficiency may or may not enter into it based heavily on just how much a prototype costs relatively to what the market can bare. Which leads too...
Re: (Score:2)
And some companies enjoy the fact that you pay them to give then your data [forbes.com] only to have them sell it and make even more money.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah-ha! So, we've established my proposal as sound in principle. Now, we're just haggling over price.
Jack Sparrow
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Re:Not on your life ... (Score:4, Interesting)
these companies want your information for free
I would be willing to give them accurate information from free. That would be better than the inaccurate data they have now. Then they could compete to give me what I want, instead of what they think I want. A few months ago, I shopped online for a minivan. The marketers recognized this almost immediately, and I started getting web ads and even paper mail ads. But most of them were very poorly targeted. They tried to sell me SUVs, which I had no interest in, or vans with insufficient seats (I drive a car pool thrice a week for 7 people). Then a week later, I bought the van. Now, months later, I am still getting the ads for vans. I would be really slick if I could tell them the exact criteria I wanted, the best offer I had received so far, and when is my cut off for a final decision. Then they could tailor their offers to me. They would save marketing dollars, and I would save time and get a better deal.
Re: (Score:3)
I would be really slick if I could tell them the exact criteria I wanted, the best offer I had received so far, and when is my cut off for a final decision. Then they could tailor their offers to me.
But that would never happen. They aren't going to limit their offers to the specific details you give them simply because too many people think they want one thing when they want another, or would want another if they knew about it. If they don't have exactly what you want, or they tell you "here it is" and you don't buy, they don't make a sale. But if they say "here's something like what you asked for..." and you actually like it and buy, they win.
A very trivial anecdote. Two weeks ago I went to a new re
Re: (Score:2)
Never going to happen, these companies want your information for free, and in an unregulated way in order to maximize corporate profits.
Hey, if I get to see the RIAA or MPAA argue "no, we wont stop sharing that, it's not stealing, information wants to be free!" it will all be worth it.
Way to Solve This (Score:2)
Is for people to turn over the exclusive status of all their personal data to a non-profit personal data representative, who will then seek payment or punative damanges from any other entity corporate or individual that seeks to use such personal information without first paying for the privilege or first paying for the information they have already obtained without having yet paid for it. The payment would then be sent to the people who provided the non-profit personal data representative with their pers
Re: (Score:2)
Consumers will never get anything here except screwed.
Except for what the consumers are already getting. First of all "BIG" data is only worthwhile in BIG chunks. Your 'chunk' of data isn't big enough, just a drop of water in the pail. It isn't really worth money.
But it is worth goods and services. Because that is what they have been offering you for your data. A lot of people claim you are the product not the consumer for Facebook. And yet Facebook is offering you a service, for you be their product. It might not be a service you like or care for, but many
Re: (Score:2)
I find it funny that you care enough to mention "BENGHAZI" in a few threads but you don't care enough to post a link or two in your comment.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
That's the beautiful part about a freedom-based constitution. "Congress shall pass no law" is inviolate, no matter how long the stream of words used, by power hungry interlopers, in attempts to seize power.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:I hope so (Score:4, Funny)
Roses Are Red,
Violets Are Blue,
Milk, Eggs, Coffee.
Re:I hope so (Score:5, Funny)
That's what they say,
But it just isn't true.
Roses are red
And apples are too,
But violets are *violet*.
Violets aren't blue!
An orange is orange,
But Greenland's not green.
A pinky's not pink,
So what does it mean?
To call something blue
When it's not, we defile it.
But, ah, what the heck,
It's *hard* to rhyme violet!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just in case someone didn't get the reference [youtube.com]...
Re: (Score:1)