Hacker News Reader

Comment by scarface74 | Hacker News Reader

No mention of the irony of someone who doesn't use Google Play Services because he only uses open source software being willing to attach a device to his car, running closed source software, that tracks everything he does in his car?

View on HN

Because he is getting up to a 40% discount in exchange for sharing his location data while he is using his car, he should also run Google Play Services and share his location the whole time too? What?

Exactly. Being concerned about privacy doesn't mean that you don't have a price at which you'll sell specific data of yours.

We need these "personal data for discount" transactions to become more explicitly consensual. Despite the well-tuned sensitivities of those in this community, we have a long way to go before most consumers are informed about this unwitting marketplace.

The trouble I see coming is, right now it's "a discount" for sharing the data. Once these sorts of services become ubiquitous and well tested, it'll be "a surcharge" for not sharing the data. Explicit opt out, versus explicit opt in. Right now, it feels like you're getting value out of sharing your data, but in the future, you may have to pay more (relative to others) to keep your data private.

They're two sides of the same coin. Your situation is already the reality. A 40% discount for selling your information is a 67% surcharge for your privacy.

That's a matter of perspective, and I agree that that's what it will very rapidly become. However, right now, I would say it really is a discount - you get a rate that is lower than what you would otherwise have gotten before the technology was introduced. That's partially a reward for you being part of the early adopter group that will make it ubiquitous enough that they can justify raising the prices back up to the level the market can bear.

I think I have a similar attitude. I have Google's location tracking on, but search history, YouTube history, etc turned off. I'm much more sensitive to digital privacy because it has complex, wide-ranging implications, whereas my location is a limited set of data that I'm more comfortable sharing with a semi-trusted company.

I wouldn't want to know a company when, how often and which doctors I consult for one. If you don't want to share your search history you may not want to share your location data either. I would see these as equivalent.

> I wouldn't want to know a company when, how often and which doctors I consult for one.

Depends. A lot of doctor's offices are in "medical parks," so it's entirely possible they don't know which doctor you are seeing or why. They have easier access to that information via your calendar (if you use it) than your location.

Also, even if you did go to a doctor's office in the middle of nowhere with nothing else around and only one doctor working there, that doesn't mean you are there to see the doctor.

For that matter, your location data couldn't be proven to be yours on merit alone. Anyone can be using my car, and anyone can have my phone, at any given time.

You're underestimating the google, my friend. This response also misses the point, just because this specific example may not be relevant to you (what about private practice doctors?), there are hundreds of others that are.

Why turn off search history, youtube history, etc? Google likely gathers all of it anyway, so you might as well see what they keep regardless of your settings.

I suppose it's good in case your account gets leaked.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com