Current Events > Bill proposed to make tech companies disclose worth of user data

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://amp.axios.com/mark-warner-josh-hawley-dashboard-tech-data-4ee575b4-1706-4d05-83ce-d62621e28ee1.html

Senators Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) will introduce legislation on Monday to require Facebook, Google, Amazon and other major platforms to disclose the value of their users' data, as first reported Sunday evening on "Axios on HBO."

Why it matters: Our personal data is arguably our most valuable asset in the digital age, but internet users don't have any way of knowing how much their data is actually worth.

The big picture: Two decades ago, consumers made a bargain we traded our data in exchange for using "free" sites like Facebook, Instagram, Google, YouTube and Twitter. Warner says he wants consumers to be more informed about the real value of what they give up in the form of, for example, location data, relationship status, data about the apps we use, our age, gender and lifestyle.

Between the lines: The point of the bill is to help consumers understand what they may be giving up when they click on "I agree" and hold tech companies to a higher level of transparency.

Individuals wouldn't get any sort of pay-out for the use of their data.
The value of an individual's data is the subject of some debate. Warner says it's probably around $5 a month, while other estimates put it around $20 a month. It could be more, depending on the type of data collected.

The bill would require companies that generate material revenue from data collection or processing and have more than 100 million monthly users to disclose to users the types of data collected, how it is used, and to provide an assessment of the value of that data once every 90 days.
It would require these companies to disclose annually to the Securities and Exchange Commission the aggregate value of all of their users' data. The report would have to include details of contracts with third parties for data collection, how revenue is generated by user data, and measures taken to protect that data.
The bill would direct the SEC to develop methods for calculating the value of user data, accounting for varying uses, sectors, and business models.
Companies must provide a setting or tool for users to delete all or part of their data.

Sounds like a win for consumers.
---

how about forbidding companies from collecting data
this does nothing to protect consumers
---

we need a law that forces them to pay us BACK for collecting our data.

we should ear interest on that shit
---

Garioshi posted...

how about forbidding companies from collecting data
this does nothing to protect consumers

It is a first step.
Once people realize these apps aren't actually free, they begin to wake up and realize, "hmm, maybe I don't really want them using my profile info to develop models predicting psychology....unless they pay me!"

And

The bill would direct the SEC to develop methods for calculating the value of user data, accounting for varying uses, sectors, and business models.
Companies must provide a setting or tool for users to delete all or part of their data.

---

spudger posted...

we need a law that forces them to pay us BACK for collecting our data.

we should ear interest on that shit

You already agreed.

But maybe for future apps they will be incentivized to pay you.
---

seems fair enough to me
---

Presumably this will lead to a new data tax on tech companies, effectively charging them income tax on the value of data received each year. That's probably the real reason this is happening.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Presumably this will lead to a new data tax on tech companies, effectively charging them income tax on the value of data received each year. That's probably the real reason this is happening.

I am ok with that.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Presumably this will lead to a new data tax on tech companies, effectively charging them income tax on the value of data received each year. That's probably the real reason this is happening.

I am ok with that.

That would be asinine to tax revenue as income
---

Garioshi posted...

how about forbidding companies from collecting data
this does nothing to protect consumers

Man how much would these companies valuations fall if this happened
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Presumably this will lead to a new data tax on tech companies, effectively charging them income tax on the value of data received each year. That's probably the real reason this is happening.

I am ok with that.

So you want even more ads and "featured posts" on twitterbook?

SK8T3R215 posted...

Garioshi posted...

how about forbidding companies from collecting data
this does nothing to protect consumers

Man how much would these companies valuations fall if this happened

I'm pretty sure ride-sharing companies couldn't possibly continue to exist, at least
---

Balrog0 posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Presumably this will lead to a new data tax on tech companies, effectively charging them income tax on the value of data received each year. That's probably the real reason this is happening.

I am ok with that.

That would be asinine to tax revenue as income

I mean I'm probably using the wrong tax here, but I still think this is a preamble to a new type of tax based on the value of data which currently isn't tracked at all.
---

SK8T3R215 posted...

Garioshi posted...

how about forbidding companies from collecting data
this does nothing to protect consumers

Man how much would these companies valuations fall if this happened

I'd assume a fuckin because they will have to pay taxes on literally millions of profiles, it won't ever happen tho because big cooperations like Google and Facebook will toss a few million to Congress to make them STFU like they did with net neutrality
---

Balrog0 posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Presumably this will lead to a new data tax on tech companies, effectively charging them income tax on the value of data received each year. That's probably the real reason this is happening.

I am ok with that.

That would be asinine to tax revenue as income

Technicalities aside, the data is a real asset.
---

I don't think preventing companies from collecting data is the solution. As scary as it may seem for our privacy, a lot of services are benefited greatly from the data they gather from consumers.

normies deserve it for diving companies their data
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

I don't think preventing companies from collecting data is the solution. As scary as it may seem for our privacy, a lot of services are benefited greatly from the data they gather from consumers.

does Bezos pay you to post this or do you shill for free
---

Philoktetes posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

I don't think preventing companies from collecting data is the solution. As scary as it may seem for our privacy, a lot of services are benefited greatly from the data they gather from consumers.

does Bezos pay you to post this or do you shill for free

If you can't recognize the fact that we consumers take full advantage of the services many companies provide while lambasting their ability to provide said service, I don't know what to tell you.

People "propose" bills all the time, it doesn't mean anything
---

Philoktetes posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

I don't think preventing companies from collecting data is the solution. As scary as it may seem for our privacy, a lot of services are benefited greatly from the data they gather from consumers.

does Bezos pay you to post this or do you shill for free

He just knows what's up. Blocking access to data would effectively be the death of modern AI and machine learning and every service that relies on it. You can absolutely fight for your privacy, but people know even less about HOW their data is used than they know which data is collected at all.

Autonomous cars? Gone. Automated threat detection? Gone. Rapid patches to fight new viruses? Gone.
---

the only services that use AI are the services that show me advertisements

we'd be better off without them
---

Letron_James posted...

SK8T3R215 posted...

Garioshi posted...

how about forbidding companies from collecting data
this does nothing to protect consumers

Man how much would these companies valuations fall if this happened

I'd assume a fuckin because they will have to pay taxes on literally millions of profiles, it won't ever happen tho because big cooperations like Google and Facebook will toss a few million to Congress to make them STFU like they did with net neutrality

Why would they pay taxes on profiles?
---

I like the idea of this bill and Id like to hear more support for it.
---

wouldn't it probably just be like... idk... we have x profiles that we get y data from that gets us z in revenue so each profile is worth epsilon dollars

or something?
---

Balrog0 posted...

wouldn't it probably just be like... idk... we have x profiles that we get y data from that gets us z in revenue so each profile is worth epsilon dollars

or something?

I imagine it would be significantly more complicated than that.

You have the raw data, which is hypothetically weighted based on importance or relevance to their algorithms. on a per-feature basis (so one piece of data in a profile gets you 50% accuracy in ML predictions, but another piece only adds 1% accuracy).
Then you have to determine for your services if the source of data is equally valuable: if you sell bread is the value of a child the same as the value of a mom, for example.
Then you have to determine to what extent your algorithms have impacted your profits to determine what percentage of those profits can be attributed to the data so you can work backwards to value the data itself.
Then you have to decide how staleness of data depreciates the "market value" of the data itself... there's no clear indicator that month old data is worth as much as fresh data, and that value likely depends on the data, the service it supports, and the industry that service is associated with.
There's also the fact that the value of data changes with quantity: a single point of data is worthless whereas ten million points of data is worth a lot, but each point individually is still basically useless... it's the aggregate only that has use. Which also depends on the algorithm: a support vector machine requires far less data to train than a convolutional neural net, but also generally produces lower accuracy predictions... the effectiveness of the algorithm is again a factor of quantity of data which ties back to the value of the data as a factor of profits. A bad algorithm producing bad results has no value so... does the data?

And I expect the value to vary wildly depending on the industry.

And honestly this is just a top-of-my-head estimate of the complexity of the problem.
---

s0nicfan posted...

I imagine it would be significantly more complicated than that.

well, yeah, obviously, I just meant that in practice the way you price profile data is by showing what you're making off of it
---

s0nicfan posted...

Presumably this will lead to a new data tax on tech companies, effectively charging them income tax on the value of data received each year. That's probably the real reason this is happening.

They need all the regulation not just the end of their censorship practices, they're too powerful to not have the maximum amount of oversight allowed by law.
---

It's good that this bill would make tech companies face more scrutiny

But I'd prefer the bill fail since I'd rather not see a GOP senator get a win.
---

Doom_Art posted...

It's good that this bill would make tech companies face more scrutiny

But I'd prefer the bill fail since I'd rather not see a GOP senator get a win.

this is the problem with partisan politics

people see everything as my side vs. the other side irregardless of the issues
---

Doom_Art posted...

It's good that this bill would make tech companies face more scrutiny

But I'd prefer the bill fail since I'd rather not see a GOP senator get a win.

Mark Warner is a dem.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

Mark Warner is a dem.

Josh Hawley is a Rep
---

Doom_Art posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

Mark Warner is a dem.

Josh Hawley is a Rep

So you hate democracy?
---

I hate the Republican Party
---

Balrog0 posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Presumably this will lead to a new data tax on tech companies, effectively charging them income tax on the value of data received each year. That's probably the real reason this is happening.

I am ok with that.

That would be asinine to tax revenue as income

Then you only tax the purchasing party. Make the seller responsible for collecting the tax like we do with sales tax. That way you're not taxing revenue, you're taxing expenses which doesn't affect year end books.
---

Doom, can you not just troll when people are still having a legitimate discussion?
---

Doom_Art posted...

I hate the Republican Party

That is irrelevant.

You would rather a good bill made only by the side you like and the other side shut out and against such a bill.
Rather than them shaking hands saying this is a good thing we can agree on despite being embittered rivals.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

Doom_Art posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

Mark Warner is a dem.

Josh Hawley is a Rep

So you hate democracy?

Well, he is Canadian
---

Good.
---