I’m interested in the future of information sharing between companies. Ideally, the consumer or individual would always be notified, and maybe there would be some centralized ledger showing all...
I’m interested in the future of information sharing between companies. Ideally, the consumer or individual would always be notified, and maybe there would be some centralized ledger showing all information transactions.
I'm concerned because this deal was done in secret, with no transparency or oversight. I'm concerned because any data a corporation retains on me can be leaked or used against me.
I'm concerned because this deal was done in secret, with no transparency or oversight. I'm concerned because any data a corporation retains on me can be leaked or used against me.
I'm curious - what kind of deals between corporations need to be done with transparency and oversight? Both Google and Mastercard are private companies.
I'm concerned because this deal was done in secret, with no transparency or oversight.
I'm curious - what kind of deals between corporations need to be done with transparency and oversight? Both Google and Mastercard are private companies.
All of them. Corporations are not people, Citizens United notwithstanding. They are chartered by state or national governments, and thus privately owned extensions of the state. As such, they do...
I'm curious - what kind of deals between corporations need to be done with transparency and oversight?
All of them. Corporations are not people, Citizens United notwithstanding. They are chartered by state or national governments, and thus privately owned extensions of the state. As such, they do not deserve privacy rights.
Both Google and Mastercard are private companies.
That just means their stock isn't traded on public stock exchanges. All limited-liability corporations should be subject to public oversight, especially if they're involved in finance.
So what needs to be disclosed? If they are have no privacy rights, what's to stop a competitor from stealing IP? Apologies, both are public companies in this respect. I just meant they weren't...
They are chartered by state or national governments, and thus privately owned extensions of the state. As such, they do not deserve privacy rights.
So what needs to be disclosed? If they are have no privacy rights, what's to stop a competitor from stealing IP?
That just means their stock isn't traded on public stock exchanges.
Apologies, both are public companies in this respect. I just meant they weren't government entities.
All limited-liability corporations should be subject to public oversight, especially if they're involved in finance.
What is the extent of public oversight you are envisioning?
What kind of IP are we talking about? Copyrighted material, patents, and trademarks? We already have enforcement mechanisms in place for these. No worries. I disagree. IMO, all corporations are...
If they are have no privacy rights, what's to stop a competitor from stealing IP?
What kind of IP are we talking about? Copyrighted material, patents, and trademarks? We already have enforcement mechanisms in place for these.
Apologies, both are public companies in this respect.
No worries.
I just meant they weren't government entities.
I disagree. IMO, all corporations are extensions of the state because they are brought into existence by state-issued papers of incorporation.
What is the extent of public oversight you are envisioning?
Let's just say that the shareholders shouldn't be the only ones with a seat at the table, and that any corporation that exploits workers or allows data breaches should be summarily dissolved.
This is a terrible idea and would be abused in a heartbeat.
Let's just say that the shareholders shouldn't be the only ones with a seat at the table, and that any corporation that exploits workers or allows data breaches should be summarily dissolved.
This is a terrible idea and would be abused in a heartbeat.
I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but the law already permits states to put corporations to death. This power hasn't gotten much use since the nineteenth century, but that can be fixed.
That doesn't take away from the fact that it's a terrible idea. I'm glad it hasn't been put to use. We have criminal proceedings for those executives who commit wrongdoings, it doesn't make any...
That doesn't take away from the fact that it's a terrible idea. I'm glad it hasn't been put to use. We have criminal proceedings for those executives who commit wrongdoings, it doesn't make any sense to kill the corporation itself and kill jobs of innocent workers in the process.
To me that means we should start treating corporate malfeasance at least as seriously as we treat driving while black. It's not like corporations are actually people. They're only people according...
To me that means we should start treating corporate malfeasance at least as seriously as we treat driving while black.
It's not like corporations are actually people. They're only people according to the law, so they don't actually deserve due process.
Okay but you just said they should be transparent. What kind of transparency are we talking about? I'm confused here. Okay but we're not talking about worker exploitation or data breeches here?
What kind of IP are we talking about? Copyrighted material, patents, and trademarks? We already have enforcement mechanisms in place for these.
Okay but you just said they should be transparent. What kind of transparency are we talking about? I'm confused here.
Let's just say that the shareholders shouldn't be the only ones with a seat at the table, and that any corporation that exploits workers or allows data breaches should be summarily dissolved.
Okay but we're not talking about worker exploitation or data breeches here?
Well the information they hold is not theirs to give away, at least that's what the whole debate seems to be about. Do we as people own or at least have a say or need to be informed when it comes...
Well the information they hold is not theirs to give away, at least that's what the whole debate seems to be about. Do we as people own or at least have a say or need to be informed when it comes to the digital information a company has about us.
Also It very much looks like both google and mastercard where trying to keep this secret, which implies they are aware of the problems and potential backlash.
I can see this case potentially being made against google, since you can go to google.com and do a search without explicitly accepting a terms of service, but MasterCard is a different story. To...
the information they hold is not theirs to give away
I can see this case potentially being made against google, since you can go to google.com and do a search without explicitly accepting a terms of service, but MasterCard is a different story.
It very much looks like both google and mastercard where trying to keep this secret, which implies they are aware of the problems and potential backlash.
To me it seems more in their best interest PR wise, as well as to not tip off potential competitors that they are doing this - it's a unique set of data that they can leverage and potentially sell.
I wouldn't say it's implying it's problematic, so much as it's a business move.
I'm not equipped to argue the legality, and I think the general debate is larger then that. As many times before, tech is ahead of the legal system and the general consensus of society. It's a...
I'm not equipped to argue the legality, and I think the general debate is larger then that. As many times before, tech is ahead of the legal system and the general consensus of society.
It's a question of should companies be allowed to do this, to what extent and what are they obliged to report.
Frankly I'm in the camp of letting companies to their thing, but we should be informed and given an option to withdraw if we so choose.
Honestly I don't know, the obvious solution is to put it in the terms and conditions when you open an account that's almost completely useless. Maybe have it part of an automated system where when...
Honestly I don't know, the obvious solution is to put it in the terms and conditions when you open an account that's almost completely useless.
Maybe have it part of an automated system where when your information is sufficiently built up that they can do something like this, google sends an email or a notification telling you.
Or say a monthly email telling you how many times your information was accessed and by whom. I don't enough to tell if this would be a unrealistic.
It could also be fun if google sent you an email detailing who they just sold your info to and for how much, with a nice sum showing just how much your information was worth, probably a just couple cents.
The biggest problem is that it's not in googles interest to do any of this, unless sufficient pressure, namely from us is applied.
That would be very interesting and empowering to the consumer, but I'm sure every company in the ad business would be opposed to something like that. I think it's hard to get people engaged....
It could also be fun if google sent you an email detailing who they just sold your info to and for how much, with a nice sum showing just how much your information was worth, probably a just couple cents.
That would be very interesting and empowering to the consumer, but I'm sure every company in the ad business would be opposed to something like that.
unless sufficient pressure, namely from us is applied.
I think it's hard to get people engaged. Personally I think this is all interesting, but I don't really care enough to put this kind of regulation on a company - I don't see it is directly harmful to me, which is why I floated the question. I'd like to know from someone who does view at as harmful why I should care more, because I might be ignorant of the risks I'm taking with my apathy.
I don't see any reason to be. The credit system was invented for stuff like this. Processors like Mastercard are out to make money, we need credit based on how society works, they are going to do...
I don't see any reason to be. The credit system was invented for stuff like this. Processors like Mastercard are out to make money, we need credit based on how society works, they are going to do whatever they want because they know they have us.
I only built credit to get a mortgage. It's a rigged system. Score will drop 50 point overnight because of nonsense. Then 6 months later you're back up 20. And it isn't like you can attain a score and just keep it. Have to keep that utilization up but below right amount.
I am concerned about this (the general topic) because I don't think we understand the significance yet. Most people think that data is collected and handled individually, but in reality data is...
I am concerned about this (the general topic) because I don't think we understand the significance yet. Most people think that data is collected and handled individually, but in reality data is being collected from so many platforms and then combined to make an astonishingly accurate picture of you and me, our personality, political leaning, spending habit and so on. It has obvious potential for abuse and we have very little control of who gets the information and how we allow it to be used.
Knowing what is collected and how it's used would at least enable us to make an informed opinion on the matter. 'Big Data' is just another magic thing to most people.
Interesting. Do you think Visa and Mastercard will create products to compete with Bitcoin and other blockchain offerings? It seems right up their alley.
Interesting. Do you think Visa and Mastercard will create products to compete with Bitcoin and other blockchain offerings? It seems right up their alley.
I’m interested in the future of information sharing between companies. Ideally, the consumer or individual would always be notified, and maybe there would be some centralized ledger showing all information transactions.
Who knows, this is a pipe dream lol
I'm not very educated on this topic, but isn't that essentially the premise of the blockchain technology?
Blockchain is supposed to be decentralized, actually
Honest question to anyone who is concerned by this - why are you concerned?
I'm concerned because this deal was done in secret, with no transparency or oversight. I'm concerned because any data a corporation retains on me can be leaked or used against me.
I'm curious - what kind of deals between corporations need to be done with transparency and oversight? Both Google and Mastercard are private companies.
All of them. Corporations are not people, Citizens United notwithstanding. They are chartered by state or national governments, and thus privately owned extensions of the state. As such, they do not deserve privacy rights.
That just means their stock isn't traded on public stock exchanges. All limited-liability corporations should be subject to public oversight, especially if they're involved in finance.
So what needs to be disclosed? If they are have no privacy rights, what's to stop a competitor from stealing IP?
Apologies, both are public companies in this respect. I just meant they weren't government entities.
What is the extent of public oversight you are envisioning?
What kind of IP are we talking about? Copyrighted material, patents, and trademarks? We already have enforcement mechanisms in place for these.
No worries.
I disagree. IMO, all corporations are extensions of the state because they are brought into existence by state-issued papers of incorporation.
Let's just say that the shareholders shouldn't be the only ones with a seat at the table, and that any corporation that exploits workers or allows data breaches should be summarily dissolved.
This is a terrible idea and would be abused in a heartbeat.
I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but the law already permits states to put corporations to death. This power hasn't gotten much use since the nineteenth century, but that can be fixed.
That doesn't take away from the fact that it's a terrible idea. I'm glad it hasn't been put to use. We have criminal proceedings for those executives who commit wrongdoings, it doesn't make any sense to kill the corporation itself and kill jobs of innocent workers in the process.
I'm sorry, but did you read the article? It has been used. Just not very often in the 20th century. It was used much more often in the 19th century.
Good thing it's the 21st century.
To me that means we should start treating corporate malfeasance at least as seriously as we treat driving while black.
It's not like corporations are actually people. They're only people according to the law, so they don't actually deserve due process.
Okay but you just said they should be transparent. What kind of transparency are we talking about? I'm confused here.
Okay but we're not talking about worker exploitation or data breeches here?
The EU GDPR regulation is pretty much ideal in my view. A few of the more scummy companies have simply closed down in Europe over it.
Well the information they hold is not theirs to give away, at least that's what the whole debate seems to be about. Do we as people own or at least have a say or need to be informed when it comes to the digital information a company has about us.
Also It very much looks like both google and mastercard where trying to keep this secret, which implies they are aware of the problems and potential backlash.
I can see this case potentially being made against google, since you can go to google.com and do a search without explicitly accepting a terms of service, but MasterCard is a different story.
To me it seems more in their best interest PR wise, as well as to not tip off potential competitors that they are doing this - it's a unique set of data that they can leverage and potentially sell.
I wouldn't say it's implying it's problematic, so much as it's a business move.
I'm not equipped to argue the legality, and I think the general debate is larger then that. As many times before, tech is ahead of the legal system and the general consensus of society.
It's a question of should companies be allowed to do this, to what extent and what are they obliged to report.
Frankly I'm in the camp of letting companies to their thing, but we should be informed and given an option to withdraw if we so choose.
When should you be informed?
Honestly I don't know, the obvious solution is to put it in the terms and conditions when you open an account that's almost completely useless.
Maybe have it part of an automated system where when your information is sufficiently built up that they can do something like this, google sends an email or a notification telling you.
Or say a monthly email telling you how many times your information was accessed and by whom. I don't enough to tell if this would be a unrealistic.
It could also be fun if google sent you an email detailing who they just sold your info to and for how much, with a nice sum showing just how much your information was worth, probably a just couple cents.
The biggest problem is that it's not in googles interest to do any of this, unless sufficient pressure, namely from us is applied.
That would be very interesting and empowering to the consumer, but I'm sure every company in the ad business would be opposed to something like that.
I think it's hard to get people engaged. Personally I think this is all interesting, but I don't really care enough to put this kind of regulation on a company - I don't see it is directly harmful to me, which is why I floated the question. I'd like to know from someone who does view at as harmful why I should care more, because I might be ignorant of the risks I'm taking with my apathy.
I don't see any reason to be. The credit system was invented for stuff like this. Processors like Mastercard are out to make money, we need credit based on how society works, they are going to do whatever they want because they know they have us.
I only built credit to get a mortgage. It's a rigged system. Score will drop 50 point overnight because of nonsense. Then 6 months later you're back up 20. And it isn't like you can attain a score and just keep it. Have to keep that utilization up but below right amount.
I am concerned about this (the general topic) because I don't think we understand the significance yet. Most people think that data is collected and handled individually, but in reality data is being collected from so many platforms and then combined to make an astonishingly accurate picture of you and me, our personality, political leaning, spending habit and so on. It has obvious potential for abuse and we have very little control of who gets the information and how we allow it to be used.
Knowing what is collected and how it's used would at least enable us to make an informed opinion on the matter. 'Big Data' is just another magic thing to most people.
Interesting. Do you think Visa and Mastercard will create products to compete with Bitcoin and other blockchain offerings? It seems right up their alley.
@OP, just curious: Why did you omit the tag 'privacy' for this post?
I just didn't think of it. Sorry.
No need to apologize :)