Your Personal Information Is Now the World's Most Valuable Commodity (www.cbc.ca) 158
"Data is clearly the new oil," says Jonathan Taplin, director emeritus of the USC Annenberg Innovation Lab and the author of Move Fast and Break Things: How Google, Facebook and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy. While oil was the world's most valuable resource, it has been surpassed by data, as evidenced by the five most valuable companies in the world today -- Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft and Google's parent company Alphabet. CBC.ca reports: What "the big five" are selling -- or not selling, as in the case of free services like Google or Facebook -- is access. As we use their platforms, the corporate giants are collecting information about every aspect of our lives, our behavior and our decision-making. All of that data gives them tremendous power. And that power begets more power, and more profit. On one hand, the data can be used to make their tools and services better, which is good for consumers. These companies are able to learn what we want based on the way we use their products, and can adjust them in response to those needs. Access to such sweeping amounts of data also allows these giants to spot trends early and move on them, which sometimes involves buying up a smaller company before it can become a competitive threat. Pasquale points out that Google/Alphabet has been using its power "to bully or take over rivals and adjacent businesses" at a rate of about "one per week since 2010." But it's not just newer or smaller tech companies that are at risk, says Taplin. "When Google and Facebook control 88 per cent of all new internet advertising, the rest of the internet economy, including things like online journalism and music, are starved for resources."
Traditionally, this is where the antitrust regulators would step in, but in the data economy it's not so easy. What we're seeing for the first time is a clash between the concept of the nation state and these global, borderless corporations. A handful of tech giants now surpass the size and power of many governments.
Traditionally, this is where the antitrust regulators would step in, but in the data economy it's not so easy. What we're seeing for the first time is a clash between the concept of the nation state and these global, borderless corporations. A handful of tech giants now surpass the size and power of many governments.
They can still be shut down (Score:1)
Corporations do not eclipse the size or the power of any government: governments hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
Re: (Score:2)
Any one of those companies has enough money to buy an invasion of a small country (and win).
Well, there is historical precedent [wikipedia.org] for corporations raising armies and waging war in the own name.
Do you think the US government would send in our military to defend East Bumfuck from Facebook's private army?
Maybe not, but Google's navy might stop Facebook's invasion fleet.
Re: (Score:2)
Another historical precedent :-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Anyway, these moderen companies don't need to use armed force. They have found ways of making people surrender happily.
Re: (Score:2)
Even when they are not happy their ability their ability to organize democratically is destroyed through multiculturalism.
When the bread and circuses fail, they've got neighbours to fight before foreign interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Any one of those companies has enough money to buy an invasion of a small country (and win).
invading is one thing. winning is another. usa's military, with most resources, is getting bent over and spanked by even afgans, iraqis, etc, with ak47s. given the hysterical snowflake melting that even simple memos caused in places like google(not to mention the day after last election ), i doubt any such western company has the ability to withstand few slaps to several of their employees, let alone the kind of spanking usa military is enduring.
bubble of too many silly war movies, games, etc(where huge num
Re: (Score:2)
mercenaries(limited in time and numbers to start with) wont willingly die in large numbers. as such mercenaries will not win wars against motivated enemies willing to do anything for nothing. as government is finding out.
Re: They can still be shut down (Score:2)
I'm not so sure that won't change. Look at the divisions caused by brand loyalty. Now, push us an arbitrary number of generations into the future. We've already got people being shot defending their convenience store in an armed robbery.
Re: (Score:2)
We've already got people being shot defending their convenience store in an armed robbery.
most people in robbery situations give in to robbers(wisely too).
to be technical, relevant significant number here is the number of people killed defending against robbery as a percentage of all robberies involving possible defenders. that is a very small percentage.
as i said there are few people who are naturally predisposed die and kill. but to fight a war effectively, there needs to be tens of thousands willing to do that while doing low level jobs.
as for brand loyalty, unless what they want to die for d
Re: (Score:2)
Any one of those companies has enough money to buy an invasion of a small country (and win). Do you think the US government would send in our military to defend East Bumfuck from Facebook's private army? Not with Trump in charge.
There's a reason you don't bring a knife to a gunfight, so let's dispense with the asinine comparisons already with Facebook vs. the US Military/Government, which is not some "small country".
These companies enjoy many benefits and abuses of power as a United States corporation. It's probably best to not ever bite the hand that feeds them.
I'm going to start surfing incognito (Score:2)
Through a VPN.
Good luck Google figuring out who I am.
When you start sending me a check every month for my percentage – I'll take 75% thanks – then I'll rethink
Re: I'm going to start surfing incognito (Score:2)
There are a huge amount of various data collectors on the web tracking you. You can't evade them all but you can at least make it harder for them.
Add to it all chains that pester you about membership all the time. That's also part of big data.
The problem is that big data results in shops becoming more and more bland and longevity of product lines ends so you can't find a replacement for that perfect toolbox you found 5 years ago. Even things as simple as screws poses a problem, which may lead you to get dif
Re: (Score:1)
2 words. Browser fingerprinting.
Re: I'm going to start surfing incognito (Score:2)
You would need a completely different web browser for each site you visit. Running in sandboxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't a different browser profile for each task be enough.
Re: (Score:1)
Wish I still had that mod-point from this morning. Those were 3 good articles.
BTW, Panopticlick said my browser fingerprint was unique among the 593,543 tested so far! Time to make some changes and send a donation to the EFF.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For people who frequently post text add linguistic fingerprinting and coincidence detection (ie. you discuss the same subjects in different places in the same contexts/timeframe).
AI won't be able to drive a car any time soon, but associating the identity of a frequent forum poster across multiple forums is pretty easy for them.
Re: (Score:2)
> Through a VPN.
> Good luck Google figuring out who I am.
The cookies are a pretty good giveaway. So is "Location Data" gathered by various Google apps and Google sharing apps on your cell phone and wifi-based devices, even without GPS information.
No, it's not (Score:2)
Three of five sell things. The other two sell access to you.
Data isn't as important as pundits would like to believe.
Re:No, it's not (Score:5, Funny)
Well he did save Picard's life.
Re: No, it's not (Score:5, Informative)
I agree, my proof:
If my data is so valuable, why am I not being compensated for it?
You are. You receive free services on sites that offer social networks, search engines, and other value, in exchange for your participation.
The catch: you are the product that they sell.
Some aspects of this new industry are commendable. Finding out what someone likes is a step towards showing them things that they want, and not showing them things they don't -- like a good shopkeeper who knows the customers who patronize her/his business.
But this also means we need a new kind of consumer advocacy and protection: the kind that makes sure the consumer benefits, and is not harmed, by sharing information. That is not easy to balance, but I think it will be crucial to do in the years to come.
Re: No, it's not (Score:5, Insightful)
Some aspects of this new industry are commendable. Finding out what someone likes is a step towards showing them things that they want...
Indeed, that does, at first glance seem commendable. Who would argue against being shown things they want to see?
... and not showing them things they don't...
And thus choice, and more importantly open mindedness, died.
Now, before you argue "But you didn't want to see it anyway" ask yourself: who decided that?
And we're not just talking about 'stuff we'd like to buy' here, we're also talking about the news we see, general information about anything and everything, all pre-filtered before we get a chance to make up our minds based on just the facts. Worse, our viewpoint is no longer ours, we don't see all sides of any story, we see everything from a viewpoint these organisations 'think' we want to see it from. Unfortunately reinforcement is 'a thing'.
And then we find ourselves asking 'searching' questions like: is extremism on the rise?
You are. You receive free services on sites that offer social networks, search engines, and other value, in exchange for your participation.
The catch: you are the product that they sell.
In this however you are, in my opinion, absolutely correct. In and of itself I'm not sure this is a bad bargain either.
It's what various companies are doing with that information, the influences they are having on our lives, that's bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent points. Thanks for your reply.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should any random asshat running a website expect to be compensated? It used to be the case -- before the sociopathic marketing droids invaded -- that people put up websites because they wanted to, not because they expected to profit. And the Internet was better that way.
Re: (Score:2)
It used to be the case -- before the sociopathic marketing droids invaded -- that people put up websites because they wanted to, not because they expected to profit. And the Internet was better that way.
It was better in some ways, anyway. If you were looking for a specific piece of information that you knew existed, and you knew something about it, you could find it pretty quickly. But if you were looking for new information, that was often very difficult. And whole classes of service which are now very popular didn't exist at all, like video streaming. There's also several orders of magnitude more content on the internet now.
There were definitely things to like about the pre-commerce internet, but there a
Re: No, it's not (Score:2)
No. It was not better that way.
Things that were not better in the past:
Porn.
Computers.
Internet.
Cars.
Food.
Shopping.
Clothing.
Jobs.
Travel.
Government.
People.
Health.
Communication.
Weed.
Beer.
Wine.
Bicycles.
I can go on, but that should be enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: No, it's not (Score:2)
Yet, here you are on a site supported by ads. Perhaps you should leave in order to be morally consistent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's well and good, but I'm not sure what that has to do with today?
Re: (Score:2)
Advertising isn't a trillion-dollar global industry because it doesn't work.
Nice double negative. It does work for the advertising agencies. They are paid the $trillions by manufacturing corporations (or by middlemen down the line from them like importers). However the manufactures & co are wasting huge amounts of money - because the Ad industry is good at talking them out of it.
Suppose I want to buy a car. Among others, Ford and Fiat, say, are both advertising against each other. However much one is spending, and it is huge, and how "effective" it is, it is levelled by th
Re: (Score:2)
Something can be a tiny minority of the total market but still be the "most valuable" single thing. If you have 298 items at 0.3% value and one thing .6% it's double the size of its competition but still small relatively speaking. It is a bit misleading I think on the headline. It makes it sound like data is now 50%+ of the commodity market which would be silly since spending 51% of the economy on the data to sell 49% of goods and services would be bad advertising spending even if the goods and services
Your individual worth... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
even when great swaths of the tech community manage to boycott/complain
A tiny sliver of the tech community complains and even fewer boycott.
Google tracks me. In exchange I get a really nice search engine, free email, free cloud storage, a great browser, and a full suite of office applications. I also see more interesting ads that are at least somewhat correlated with my interests. Why should I complain?
Re: Your individual worth... (Score:2)
In the past year, I've tried to do more browsing on a tablet. I also have no apps installed and block no ads. I mostly want to see what others see, and try this mobile revolution out. I also don't buy much online.
In this entire time, I've seen very few ads that make sense. I see ads for cars, some of those kinda make sense but I'm definitely not in the market for a new Toyota - I drive a bespoke BMW as my daily driver.
I do see ads for a company that sells barn doors. That's kinda appropriate but the barns a
-1, overrated (Score:1)
Data gathering, like self-driving cars, is mostly hype. Buyers of advertising hope it is valid, but I don't see evidence that the data produces cost effective profits for them. The data is dirty to the point of being nearly useless.
Additionally, you can be certain that their data about you, as an individual, is largely in error. Just as the Annual Credit Reports are full of errors, and the No Fly List is full of errors, they just can't assemble their data coherently yet. If ever. They assume, for instance t
Re: (Score:2)
It does not necessarily matter that the data is dirty. It only matters that globs of money can be spent a tiny bit more efficiently than the crappy way it was spent 20 years ago, to make this new kind of advertising exciting...to people who care about advertising.
For example, big automakers spent a few hundred million a year for advertising. They believe this kind of budget is in the right ballpark based on decades of experience. They are not naive. They do understand that individual advertising efforts
Re: (Score:2)
Data gathering, like self-driving cars, is mostly hype. Buyers of advertising hope it is valid, but I don't see evidence that the data produces cost effective profits for them. The data is dirty to the point of being nearly useless.
Additionally, you can be certain that their data about you, as an individual, is largely in error. Just as the Annual Credit Reports are full of errors, and the No Fly List is full of errors, they just can't assemble their data coherently yet. If ever. They assume, for instance that your IP address is only used by you. That is until they find you purchasing women's wear, infant and adult diapers and men's motorcycle boots. How can they parse that information into a statistically valid conclusion?
It's safe to say that we can easily confuse all but the most dedicated trackers. Most users do without even trying.
Based on your theory, I would expect any minute now the cost of a 30-second Superbowl ad to plummet by 90%, along with most of the demand for commercial advertising and internet ads.
Yes, we'll be able to shut down our ad blockers any day now, since most data is worthless...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who gives a fuck?
Lots more people than should. That's how we wind up with all these cowards all over slashdot
Re: (Score:2)
Who gives a fuck?
According to "The Boy Kings of Facebook" [amzn.to] by Katherine Losse, a service like Facebook is popular because "people and stories". Same reason for Slashdot. We're all here for the people and the stories. It certainly not for the deep technical discussions that almost never happens around here. You have to go to Reddit for that.
Re: (Score:2)
We're all here for the people and the stories.
False, some are here to post affiliate links, a.k.a. spam.
Re: (Score:2)
False, some are here to post affiliate links, a.k.a. spam.
Which doesn't violate the Slashdot TOS. If you got a problem with that, take it up with management.
Data is clearly the new oil? (Score:2)
Posession is nine points of the law (Score:2)
Repeating the obvious seems increasingly pointless, but: Unless we are given control over our personal information, then freedom becomes meaningless. With sufficient personal information about you I can force you or prevent you from doing anything. It's not just the bad stuff that can be used as a sticks to threaten you, but even the good stuff that can be used as carrots to manipulate you. (Check my sig.)
Easier to make the example clear by personifying it, so: Controlling your personal information means de
Re: Posession is nine points of the law (Score:2)
Ferengi rules of acquisition comes to mind.
Re: (Score:2)
I never developed a taste for TNG. The holodeck was too much of a cop-out for me. However, I looked at the relevant Wikipedia article, and it sounds like more of Roddenberry's wolfish social commentary disguised in sheepish SF clothing. If so, and as I understand it now, I would approach the analysis from the perspective of healthy greed versus sickness. A certain amount of greed is just driving "the pursuit of happiness", and that's not a bad thing, but when your greed reaches the point that you are willin
Re: (Score:2)
You've got a game theory problem there: why would those better people want to see you?
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent point, and they might not. I don't see that as a real problem, however. The time they don't waste on me is more time that they can spend doing the good things that earned their high reputations.
I actually feel bothered when I intrude on the attention of such people, even when they reply to my questions in a kind way. Among other time-saving tools, I would like them to use celebrity email systems that would handle routine questions and reactions without consuming any of their valuable time. Again,
Privacy (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Can they add laws such that people who value their privacy be able to avoid self-driving cars.
The short form is no. And in fact, they're more likely to pass a law that says that all vehicles, automated or not, need to carry a V2V beacon that informs other vehicles of its position, speed, and brake and accelerator pedal states.
Online privacy is a mirage... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you smell sour, creimer
That my trolls have trolls is too funny.
Re: (Score:2)
This is Slashdot we're talking about here. It's Trolls all the way down!
Re: (Score:2)
You even fucked up somewhere along the way and outed yourself, I remember reading the comment, but I'll be damned if I'll spend the 30 seconds of time on you it'd take to dig up the comment.
That was for the Black Amazon Dot [amzn.to] to match my vintage black 2006 MacBook. Don't blame me for your own damn trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
And the author ain't sorry for compromising online privacy in this podcast
I guess it's understandable since some ain't sorry for compromising online privacy with amazon affiliate links.
Re: (Score:1)
Anybody considering buying that book but not wanting to give an affiliate bonus to creimer can buy this used copy [abebooks.com] at abebooks.com for $5.46 with $3.99 shipping.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would anyone blackmail a nobody? Why do you make it sound like happens often?
Check out my blog post, The Blackmail of David Letterman [bit.ly].
And if you're that open, why did you get so upset a month ago because people found out "personal" information you ejaculate everywhere given any provocation?
I was unaware that third-party websites had republished my personal information from public documents. I was under the impression that douche bags were going out of their way to find public documents at government websites.
So you won't mind if I post your phone number here?
If you want to be a douche bag, be my guest.
Re: (Score:2)
You're really not important enough for that.
Except that I was falsely accused of threatening to shoot people, fake accounts got deleted for mocking me, and dick pics with my contact info got posted on Russian websites. The douche bags on Slashdot found me important enough to waste their time. Some of this I've documented [bit.ly] on my blog, the rest I'm saving for an essay that I'll publish next year.
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus Christ, you poor victim. The world awaits the story of the The First Victim Of The Internet with bated breath! Oh please don't keep us waiting, askance!
I'm not a victim. I just have an interesting life that people are willing to pay money to read about.
Re: (Score:2)
If the government decides to open your data container, it not going to be fun and games.
You mean the Chinese? They already got my background file for my security clearance.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they pay when you said "If I haven't written about it, I'll do so immediately" on his shitty blog?
The same reason why people buy a book instead of downloading a bootleg PDF of the book.
Re: (Score:2)
So how does that apply, Moby Trick?
Different formats. The blog is free. The ebooks are not.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't blackmail you if everyone already knows everything about you
Small-minded people think they're the only ones who have information that no one else knows about. I'm always happy to throw out a link and tell them to rethink their position. Most of the time they just go away.
Not the first time (Score:3)
What we're seeing for the first time is a clash between the concept of the nation state and these global, borderless corporations.
No, this is not the first time. The East India Company [wikipedia.org], for example, had immense power at its height.
Re: Not the first time (Score:3)
Franchise war in Demolition Man, Max Headroom, Fahrenheit 451, 1984, Neuromancer, Brave New World, Ferengi invasion - all in one package.
personal ownership of your data (Score:1)
Own your own data.
Publish your data under license.
Restrict usage of your data.
If it is valuable, they will pay you something to use your data.
Bubble Alert! (Score:2)
I find it very hard to believe that the day to day details of how I barely slide into payday with a dollar left in my wallet can somehow be transformed into wealth by the 1%. Long ago I heard the phrase "physical economy" uttered by Lyndon LaRouche... and it has stuck with me ever since... show me how this information actually results in a widget being manufactured somewhere, and isn't just a bit in a bank account... and I might believe you.
I make gears for a living... I understand how the value I put i
Simple: (Score:2)
The power of this information is in aggregate.
The knowledge that you make gears for $1 each, and buy springs for $2 each, may be useless.
The knowledge that there are 50,000 people like you, may also be useless.
But, add the knowledge that there are 50,000 other people making springs for $1 each and paying $2 for gears, and now you can place a bunch of orders, make a deal with a shipping company, sell gears and springs for $1.75 each, and make approximately $70,000 from one round of sales... And you've saved
Headline is simply not true (Score:5, Informative)
Why base it on market capitalization? As the dot-com bubble showed, that's an extremely variable and unreliable way to measure a company's success.
Based on annual revenue [fortune.com] - you know, how much these companies actually sell, which seems like a more relevant measure if you're talking about how valuable their product is - the listed companies rank:
#9 Apple
#26 Amazon
#65 Alphabet
#69 Microsoft
#393 Facebook
The top ten companies based on revenue are:
#1 Walmart (retail)
#2 State Grid (Chinese electricity utility)
#3 Sinopec Group (oil)
#4 China National Petroleum (oil)
#5 Toyota Motor (auto)
#6 Volkswagen (auto)
#7 Royal Dutch Shell (oil)
#8 Berkshire Hathaway (finance)
#9 Apple (tech)
#10 Exxon Mobil (oil)
So based on value of sales, the world's most valuable commodity remains oil.
The top ten companies based on profit [fortune.com] are:
#1 Apple (tech)
#2 JP Morgan Chase (finance)
#3 Berkshire Hathaway (finance)
#4 Wells Fargo (finance)
#5 Gilead Sciences (pharmaceuticals)
#6 Verizon (telecom)
#7 Citigroup (finance)
#8 Alphabet (tech)
#9 Exxon Mobil (oil)
#10 Bank of America (finance)
So based on profit, the world's most valuable commodity is financial services.
Revenue = how much you actually sell
Profit = how strong your sales are (delta between supply and demand)
Market cap = investors (including clueless ones) placing bets
Re: (Score:1)
You and your silly facts. It's feelings that matter now. I need to believe that someone is oppressing me to fuel my outrage against the man. The white man is stealing my data. Quick, somebody tell me where the closest statue is. "Hey Siri! Where's the closest statue of a white man?"
Re: (Score:1)
As if the stock market isn't white supremacist institution.
Remember folks, if white people do it, it's white supremacy. If non-white people do it, its liberation. "It" being pretty much anything and everything.
So go kys white people, you're a stain on humanity and must be eradicated.
Re: (Score:3)
Only Now? (Score:2)
ummmmm, duuhhhh. Put out as much fake data as you can about yourself. May as well make it funny.
no way (Score:2)
Fine. (Score:2)
Just as long as they acknowledge the value of that information when they take it from me. And compensate me for it properly.