This opt-in/opt-out is a false dichotomy in my opinion, because probably 90% of the population don't know this issue at all. So it doesn't seem to matter much, how difficult the opt-out mechanism is. Likewise, if you use an opt-in mechanism, practically nobody will opt-in, although if everybody could weigh the cost/benefits the result might be different.
Which is fine, it would be a huge price on society if everybody had to educate themselves on these small issues all the time.
This is an area where regulation is the best choice. As long as there is no law against it, I can't see how it google is in the wrong here?
That's why "opt out" is not an ethical or practical solution. There needs to be a (legally mandated and enforced) requirement for such things to be opt-in.
Yes, there is some friction in opting out just like there is friction in any action you want to take (from going to the grocery store to voting). So what?
The reality is that some people really care about this stuff but the wider population doesn't. The people that care tend to get really frustrated at the wider population and attribute the population's uncaring attitude to the small amount of friction that it takes to opt out and/or to ignorance and/or low-intelligence. This is followed by a push for a government policy to adjust the behaviour. If people won't care by themselves or are too stupid to do it, we'll make them care through laws ... and that usually results in idiotic policies like a cookie warning on every webpage on the internet.
I don't think the law is harmful. I'm considering the absence of opt-outs and the general prevalence of opt-ins evidence of people not being eager to opt-out.
I don't disagree with any of that. The alternative though with opt out is that you're effectively not giving many people a choice because they don't get around to making one. Maybe that's ok as a matter of policy but it has both philosophical and practical issues.
While I agree in premise, the fact it isn't an opt-in/opt-out thing is broken. There is such a thing as information overload... maybe that thing I missed is something I didn't want to see in the first place - it should be my decision, not theirs.
An opt-out is a good defense that the companies should have done a long time ago to avoid criticism and getting into this situation in the first place. It's doubtful that too many people would take advantage of it, and the companies can just point and say "see, we allow an opt-out!".
But as a society, I think an opt-out is a poor thing to encourage. If the behaviour is not acceptable, why should people have to opt-out, instead of opting in?
- There's no way to know what the actual ramifications are.
- There's no way to measure those against the other things that I'm already doing.
I already do Google searches and watch YouTube videos on my own computer from my own WiFi network, and I also use a debit card, have an EZ Pass, use a cell phone, etc. As I'm sure do most people reading this.
There's zero way for anyone to really know how our actions will effect us in the future. For all we know, opting out may be worse than opting in when it comes time to get insurance, get a loan, apply for a job, etc.
It's certainly creepy when you're actually confronted with all the information that's floating around about you head on, but it's not at all clear what it all means or how it actually effects you. And believe me, I've read several books on privacy, Internet privacy specifically.
Opt-out is really to blame here. Almost everything is opt-out in the US. Go look at how the EU handles data/privacy sensitive stuff: most of the time, it's opt-in.
What are your reasons for declining to opt-out, out of interest?
I looked into this law (the actual wording of the law itself even) and found it to be mostly harmless. I also came across the wording which nullifies the entire regulation from being enforced if you opt-out after an introduction, which happens in 99% of cases, so I wasn't too worried.
Will someone please inform Mr. Cuban that Google's opt-out procedure is entirely voluntary on their part and there's nothing that says they have to continue to offer it or abide by it?
I'm really getting sick of reading about this harebrained idea on HN. There is nothing about it that is smart and I don't understand why anyone cares what this person who doesn't seem to understand any of the basic concepts involved thinks about it.
This strikes me as a sketchy use of "opt-out": why would anyone actually want this? They're clearly hoping that most people either don't find out, or are too lazy to bother.
Which is fine, it would be a huge price on society if everybody had to educate themselves on these small issues all the time. This is an area where regulation is the best choice. As long as there is no law against it, I can't see how it google is in the wrong here?
reply