Yeah it's really not very well known, also the links don't actually work properly.
Yes I've noticed that as well, the links have always been borked. Doubt it'll get fixed any time soon, but at least the ground work is there and it makes it ever so slightly easier to make the formatting.
Exactly. Also, the main point I'm trying to make here is that data does not have a completely trivial value - it's not pennies per year, even with a conservative estimate.
Those people were me lol
That's very interesting! I'd also read somewhere that data collection was a trillion dollar industry, however the figure I found here is purely data brokerage so does not include Google per se - Google sell advertising, the data they collect is kept to themselves, so it's much harder to pin down a value.
It also stands to reason that an American's data is worth more on the market than, say, a North Korean's - users who use the internet more will have more data being traded.
I've finally run some actual numbers, after finding a source for the data brokerage industry value (much lower, $319 billion in 2021). The link to your instance's version is here: https://lemmy.world/post/10892972
TL;DR my conservative estimate is that every user is owed roughly $40 per year - but this doesn't include Google or other businesses who keep and exploit proprietary datasets, rather than selling the raw data.
Any person who:
- Is of Hispanic descent living within the state of Oklahoma;
- Is a member of a criminal street gang as such term is defined in subsection F of Section 856 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes; and
- Has been convicted of a gang-related offense enumerated in paragraphs one (1) through sixteen (16) of subsection F of Section 856 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes,
shall be deemed to have committed an act of terrorism
You're probably right. Although, I question whether or not there should be an "and" after every line, to clearly define the Boolean logic. In one way of reading it, you would need to be either Hispanic living in Oklahoma, OR a member of a criminal offense and convicted of gang-related offenses, to be labelled as a terrorist.
This also entirely ignores the fact that terrorism has a clear definition that does not apply here. Terrorism is using violence or the threat of violence against a civilian population to enact political change - gang crime does not generally fit into this, except in very limited circumstances.
Sure, it's not the hundreds of dollars I'd estimated previously. In the past I've said "the data brokerage industry is a multi-trillion dollar industry" and come up with figures ranging from $100-$700 per year owed to the user.
However, it should be said that this is just data brokerage. Not all businesses sell the data they collect, instead they keep it proprietary and use it themselves. Google, for example, sells advertising, not user data.
So I think my estimations here have been very conservative overall, and the real value may well be much higher.
Also, it's not just about it being a small amount from an individual, it's the fact that they're robbing everyone blind that really gets my wick. No one really understands the value of user data, not intuitively, and the whole transaction is done in a deceptive manner to abuse this fact.
Also, I'm really happy I finally found a genuine excuse to show off Lemmy's citation feature lol
Thanks. I didn't downvote you, you have my respect.
the danger to no one actuallyincreased it didn’t decrease as it should have
That's a good way of putting it. The danger was supposed to go down, but it did not because of these assholes.
Damn lmao did we kill my first source? It won't load anymore for me to double check what is included.
With regards to consumer data being aggregated insights, rather than personal info or targeted ads, that still doesn't mean they should get it for free, though. Furthermore, I'd argue that all info is personal info, given that it is so easy to identify a person with very few data points.
Edit: You're right, it includes business data. However I'd expect much of that data is paid for down to the data subject, excluding the stuff that's public domain.
It's not reasonable that business data should be fairly paid for, while consumer data isn't.