Now you may say that you can't trust corporations with this responsibility, but what if there WAS something we could do to enforce that responsibility? How much control I have over my information should be left up to me, and it would be great if an entity I trust could enforce that. As of this moment, we don't have that option. However, it doesn't mean that such a future is impossible. If we argue about it enough, maybe the technology and the courts can find a way to make it happen.
Data is being gleamed about you even if you aren't using their products, and it's being used by companies you haven't authorized all the time.
If you tell me that you like bananas, and I bring you bananas, I'm not being unethical. The problem with online services is that you're baring your soul to the eye of sauron without realizing what it means. The only way to win is not to play.
This is set to activate in a year, and it is a huge problem for software used in the EU because almost nobody is ready for it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regu...
But you can have reasonable control of it and you can't with the latter.
Sure we do. But this is generally regarded as a bad thing and indicative of a failure in our commercial system to engender fair outcomes. Informational asymmetries aren't things we should be actively involved in exacerbating.
Of course we exacerbate information asymmetries. That's what we do. That's why the neanderthals are in our museums, instead of the other way around.
Saying we shouldn't is like saying birds shouldn't fly, because it's not fair to the fish.
If not, how do you know it is in fact the right thing?
If you prescribe and enforce your ethics, I think you're wandering close to another definition of politics.
My ethics? I never said mine.
And yes, there are inherent dangers (like tyranny of the majority), but there are trivial ethical issues where there is no good solution for allowing the [or any] minority to self-determine. (Like rules regarding sex with children, just to throw in the classic think of the children. But of course the age of consent is not a magical line somehow creating an overnight transformative event for every resident of that state.)
But the point remains that most people are voluntarily, enthusiastically, giving up personal data in exchange for features that they find valuable.
It's hard to see that as a privacy issue.
Being part of the world involves being known. In the proverbial "olde days," when people lived in much smaller communities, everyone knew everyone's business.
Government spying on its own citizens is more problematic. But again, being a citizen, by definition, means aspects of an individual's life are known, and are public data.
This notion of "privacy" is a special, legal, construct. It's meaning in everyday language is provisional.
What is more problematic, IMO, is the excessive use of classification by the Federal Government. This practice is vulnerable to abuse, as it enables legally enforced secrecy to cover up misconduct.
https://techcrunch.com/2015/06/06/the-online-privacy-lie-is-...
No, that's demonstrably false. Most people have no idea how exactly they are tracked and what information is being collected about them. How would they? It's not always as simple as "Uhh, so I guess if I write an email in Gmail Google can see my email?!" And even then, I think the majority don't actually think that Google does that. "I mean, email is private is it not?!" - is what some people likely think.
Do you actually think that most people know that Facebook and Google track them across the web and know most of the sites they visit when they aren't even on Google or Facebook's websites, through Google Analytics code and the Like button (without having to press on it)?
How long before the technology and bandwidth becomes advanced enough that it's actually possible to capture all conversations from mics 24/7 of the people around a device, and store it for analysis in the cloud? Do you think people expect that to happen right now, or are "enthusiastic" about it? No, they don't and aren't.
In fact some call this idea a "conspiracy theory." But ten years from now we'll probably discover Facebook or Amazon has already been doing it for a few years, and a few more years later the privacy invasion apoligists will start saying "well yeah, of course they listen to your microphone, that's why it's there! To analyze your context and give you even more targeted products and ads!"
Companies first abuse new ways to track people (I guess they would call that "innovation"), and maybe 10 years later, regulators catch-up to it and force them to pull-back their tracking a little bit, after the information has long been stored and used in their databases.
Even in a competitive market place they can collectively decide to overcharge the same customers.
Economically it would be the market clearing price so would be beneficial to the market generally. Sounds like a great thing.
In fact, this would lead to widespread pricing discrimination [2] based on what they learned (or bought) about you. Imagine seeing 20% markup on virtually everything available to you online, because every retailer can see your higher-than-average income before their page loads in your browser.
Personalized content (which everyone seems to love) is just an inch away from personalized pricing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis
It's not perfectly efficient because there isn't perfect information, however it's more efficient than it otherwise would be.
More information in the system = greater efficiency.
More information does not always increase market efficiency. In fact, it can have just the opposite effect when there is information asymmetry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry
http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Market_failures/Information...
Or let's go back to the Paris example. If everyone is paying the most they can afford, that leaves less money on the table for restaurants, cheese and wine when actually in Paris. It's 'great' if you only look at the market dynamics of flights and ignore the economic/social benefits of cheap travel.
The notion of a "public good" also isn't about how things should be treated, but more about how things necessarily are.
It sort of seems you're making an argument unrelated to economics here, even though it's using words also used in the jargon of economists.
If one is to believe that healthcare products should be subject to market forces, then their prices should be variable in the same way other products are. In which case the answer to the question is, yes someone with a "niche" health problem would pay a substantially high price.
If however one believes that healthcare should not be subject to market forces, that is, it should be available to all equally (non-excludable) and cannot incur asymmetric costs between users (non-rival) then the answer is no, it would not be good.
This is a fine opinion to have, but you do yourself no favors by misusing jargon like this.
This says nothing of the possibility that one party has a lot of information, and the other party has relatively little information, and the guy with very little information is getting screwed.
Genuinely wondering. My economics is a bit rusty so not sure if what I said is remotely valid
The consumer surplus is zero, but the producer surplus is the maximum possible value.
In other words, the monopolistic supplier would otherwise charge a higher price for everyone if it is unable to price discriminate. If price discrimination is successful, more consumers can afford the product.
Here's a fairly innocent scenario: if Amazon Echo can learn everything about you, they may discover that you're crazy about Paris and you have good income. Then they can sell this info to every travel website who'll put you into a pricing bucket which would guarantee that you'll overpay for your next trip.
But generally speaking, we take advantage of information asymmetry all the time: buying real estate, getting a new job, planning a vacation, etc. Sometimes you have the leverage, sometimes you don't. With massive information gathering by a handful of big players you'll most likely end up on the losing side in the future, especially when dealing with businesses/governments who can afford to buy a profile on you before engaging. Imagine if your religious beliefs and either you voted for Trump were available to anyone via an API call which takes your face image as the input and costs $0.02 to make.