Dear /g/.
I came out with some weird idea, when I was thinking about whole problem of selling data about other people behaviours and Im sure that somebody else already came with similar idea.
And that idea is - why companies dont pay people for data about them?
I mean, if companies collect informations about what sites people browse, where they buy, where they go, what they talk about, etc - why this data does not belong to the people themselves? It is some way to describe them, kinda like photos. And if company want to use your photo, you must had give them permission at some point. Why there is nothing like that with data itself?
Since our world is basically run by money, why not using money and greed to fix this problem? If it would be required to gain acceptance from people to collect info about them and pay for it, it would allow people willing to sell repair their own budged (legally sell themselves) and people who dont want to - to be legally protected.
What do you think about this idea? How many holes it have?
Thank you for any reply, like always.
because fags in india would just sell fake data and/or dumb people would get scammed by russian carders opening new accounts in their name
>>51262163
>fags in india would just sell fake data
I dont see the problem here. It would be a problem for companies making use of such data alone and Im sure that they would put some verification process into work.
>dumb people would get scammed by russian carders opening new accounts in their name
Please explain more, I dont know how it would happen.
>>51261746
>you must had give them permission at some point. Why there is nothing like that with data itself?
You give them permission by acceptiong the ToS retard
Google already does that.
>Google Opinion Rewards
you get play store money for answering
That service already exists, it's called Datacoup.
>>51263470
>>51263438
Yeah, but I was thinking about making it global, not just an option - aka forcing every data collecting company to pay people for data they provide, instead of having them collect it constantly, without their knowledge/permission, for free.
>>51264041
>forcing every data collecting company to pay people for data they provide,
You're not going to be able to pitch this to politicians.
>>51264086
Why not? Data describing you is your very private posession. Maybe not in USA, but in Europe, if enough people would suport this idea, politicans would follow to grab their sweet votes.
Think of the taxes, too...
Nobody else?
>>51263393
>It would be a problem for companies making use of such data alone and Im sure that they would put some verification process into work.
Invalid data is even worse than worthless, it corrupts the valid data. If you weren't a retard, you'd realize no verification is sufficient, when the perpetrator could access
>free money
by circumventing it.
The other fatal flaw is self-censorship. Knowing their data will be analyzed and stored with identifying information would affect the data they produce, again, making the data worse than worthless.
>inb4 why are those kinds of data worse than worthless
The data is meant to produce a predictive model according to which the providers could target ads and products. Corrupt data distorts the model and therefore loses its meaning.
>>51264041
>forcing every data collecting company to pay people for data they provide
Good luck enforcing that. How do you plan to do that, spot-checking? Don't be an idiot.
Does all this even benefit in some way?
I mean knowing about buying habits and what people look at is a fun science project but does it actually make people spend more money?
They have ruined the experience of buying stuff online by forcing an account on anyone.
and now you can't go to a large website without being tracked the rest of your life.
Human decency aside, is there anything to gain from all this?
