Hacker News Reader

Comment by shelvacu | Hacker News Reader

No, that doesn't seem quite right. I think the issue is that people don't understand just how valuable their data is.

Technically, it's posed as an exchange. People "pay" their data to get these services. People so freely give their data/privacy so much that at this point, it's a required part of using most of humanity's technology. The icon exists, it's called the power button, because if you stop paying, they don't provide the service anymore.

Don't get me wrong, it's a terrible state of affairs, and plenty of people don't even realize they're "paying" like this (likely on purpose, data is much more valuable when people don't realise the data is being collected). But there's no competition, no alternate provider of free maps & guidance that is as good as google maps and protects privacy.

So yes, of course. For the same reason that if I could simply poke an icon and receive $1000, of course I would do that.

View on HN

>people don't understand just how valuable their data is.

My data isn't valuable. Your data isn't valuable[1]. The data of all HN users is of some value. The data of all Facebook users is highly valuable. But no single FB user has any claim to having valuable data; not even in proportion.

The value is in having a collected, curated, normalized, and cross-tabulated dataset. One that can be queried at scale and with good certainty to accuracy. The value is emergent, a property of the whole graph; it's not merely sum of all the parts nodes[2]. This is one of the reasons "databases" are a separate protected category under IP laws. Come to think of it, the value was created by Facebook, by collecting, managing, and processing the dataset, rather than by users collecting the individual datasets.

We may need a whole separate branch of jurisprudence and legislation, dealing with situations where value (or harm) is an emergent phenomenon in a dense network, not only not attributable directly to any singular node, but also much greater than straightforward sum of nodes' values.

There's a similar (if of destructive value) case for vulnerable "internet of things" / "smart devices". Any singular such device being vulnerable to remote exploit is barely notable. Together, a vast army of vulnerable small "smart devices" easily become a botnet in hands of criminals, with power vastly larger than mere sum of parts. Question arises how to handle responsibility & culpability of vendors (or owners).

[1] aside of being directly useful to you.

[2] possible edges = n(n-1)/2, thus value = O(n* *2)

> We may need a whole separate branch of jurisprudence and legislation, dealing with situations where value (or harm) is an emergent phenomenon in a dense network, not only not attributable directly to any singular node, but also much greater than straightforward sum of nodes' values.

The basic concepts already exist in current jurisprudence, like class actions (many people aggregating together) and punitive damages (damages exceeding cause and effect losses). Don't think these concepts require a sea change, just a modern-day upgrade.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com