7 ms·

> I want a way to legally opt out of other such companies collecting and aggregating private data about me. Compare a desire to legally opt out (after checking

> I want a way to legally opt out of other such companies collecting and aggregating private data about me. Compare a desire to legally opt out (after checking a box, agreeing to a privacy policy you never read, having your data from 10 years ago - with a chain of custody/dispersal that's probably untenable, if not impossible, to map by now - synthesized by a third party) to GDPR's concept of consent: "The key point is that all consent must be opt-in consent, ie a positive action or indication – there is no such thing as ‘opt-out consent’. Failure to opt out is not consent as it does not involve a clear affirmative act. You may not rely on silence, inactivity, default settings, pre-ticked boxes or your general terms and conditions, or seek to take advantage of inertia, inattention or default bias in any other way. All of these methods also involve ambiguity – and for consent to be valid it must be both unambiguous and affirmative. It must be clear that the individual deliberately and actively chose to consent." Source: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/consent/what-is-valid-consent/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio...

reificator 7y ago
Yes opt in is obviously better for the end user[0], but don't let perfect be the enemy of good here. We don't have opt out yet. [0]: Until opt in becomes mandatory for use of critical services like having a bank account or paying your power bill.
- mikekchar 7y ago
  GDPR also has a concept of "objection". Even if you opt in, you can later "object" which will allow you to remove your consent. Although, in general, I really like GDPR, we've actually had a bit of a problem with this because it's quite unclear what you should do if someone opts in, then objects and then opts in again. For example, we have an opt in for us contacting the customer by email (which we do for marketing purposes). The customer can easily "object" and we'll remove them from the list. However, people frequently want to resubscribe. They thought they didn't want the marketing information and later changed their minds. It's not clear to us if it's legal for us to resubscribe them. I've actually thought that it's better for us to offer a separate service for marketing and get people to subscribe to that service under contract basis just to avoid this problem. That way they can terminate the contract and if they want to resubscribe, it's a new contract. I'm rambling here, but one of the things that really surprised me is that we have this horrible popup asking users to subscribe to our newsletter. I always opposed it because it's super annoying. However we were looking at analytics and it appears that a very large proportion of our customer base only go to the website to sign up to the newsletter (we're unusual in that most of our business comes through our call centre). So the newsletter really is a service that our customers want... It's a weird world ;-)
soulofmischief 7y ago
As reificator says, the idea is making headway. Politics require compromise. Ideally it would be opt-in, with strict regulations and severe penalties still in place.
harryh 7y ago
Equifax tracking is opt-in. It's a term on any loan or credit card you take out.
- soulofmischief 7y ago
  That's like when websites say I've opted into such and such just by visiting the website. It's a stretch to call something opt-in when it's unavoidable in modern life.
  - harryh 7y ago
    It's not like that at all. When you take out a loan or credit card you sign a legal document agreeing to all of the various terms. You don't sign anything when visiting a website.
    - stanmancan 7y ago
      I think the important part of the parent post is "It's a stretch to call something opt-in when it's unavoidable in modern life."
      - harryh 7y ago
        You can easily get through modern life without taking out a loan from the financial system. I'm 41 years old and I've never had a home or car loan. I have credit cards, but I easily could have gotten by using debit cards instead.
        soulofmischief 7y ago
        So your financial history is being tracked and scrutinized. At 41, you might be able to live and die without this being a big problem. In my 20s, I worry about my ability to secure healthcare and other such necessities in my later life based on a social credit score which includes financial credit history I never opted into. Just getting on a lease is enough for a credit pull. It's unavoidable.
closeparen 7y ago
Set standard loan terms according to worst-case credit risk. Offer personalized terms to those who agree to the data collection and processing necessary for personalization. Subprime loan products already exist. They do typically run your credit, but they don't need to: the fact that you would pay for one says all that needs to be said. They're also typically offered under different branding from a respectable financial institution's loan products for people with good credit. An opt-in requirement for credit reporting only changes these basically cosmetic facts. Better-than-worst-case credit history is immensely valuable. So valuable that a lender will cut you in on tens of thousands of dollars in savings for sharing it. Of all the things you could need opt-in consent for, it's an easy sell. Everyone would buy it. We'd be in the same position.

reificator 7y ago

Yes opt in is obviously better for the end user[0], but don't let perfect be the enemy of good here. We don't have opt out yet. [0]: Until opt in becomes mandatory for use of critical services like having a bank account or paying your power bill.

mikekchar 7y ago
GDPR also has a concept of "objection". Even if you opt in, you can later "object" which will allow you to remove your consent. Although, in general, I really like GDPR, we've actually had a bit of a problem with this because it's quite unclear what you should do if someone opts in, then objects and then opts in again. For example, we have an opt in for us contacting the customer by email (which we do for marketing purposes). The customer can easily "object" and we'll remove them from the list. However, people frequently want to resubscribe. They thought they didn't want the marketing information and later changed their minds. It's not clear to us if it's legal for us to resubscribe them. I've actually thought that it's better for us to offer a separate service for marketing and get people to subscribe to that service under contract basis just to avoid this problem. That way they can terminate the contract and if they want to resubscribe, it's a new contract. I'm rambling here, but one of the things that really surprised me is that we have this horrible popup asking users to subscribe to our newsletter. I always opposed it because it's super annoying. However we were looking at analytics and it appears that a very large proportion of our customer base only go to the website to sign up to the newsletter (we're unusual in that most of our business comes through our call centre). So the newsletter really is a service that our customers want... It's a weird world ;-)

soulofmischief 7y ago

As reificator says, the idea is making headway. Politics require compromise. Ideally it would be opt-in, with strict regulations and severe penalties still in place.

harryh 7y ago

Equifax tracking is opt-in. It's a term on any loan or credit card you take out.

soulofmischief 7y ago
That's like when websites say I've opted into such and such just by visiting the website. It's a stretch to call something opt-in when it's unavoidable in modern life.
- harryh 7y ago
  It's not like that at all. When you take out a loan or credit card you sign a legal document agreeing to all of the various terms. You don't sign anything when visiting a website.
  - stanmancan 7y ago
    I think the important part of the parent post is "It's a stretch to call something opt-in when it's unavoidable in modern life."
    - harryh 7y ago
      You can easily get through modern life without taking out a loan from the financial system. I'm 41 years old and I've never had a home or car loan. I have credit cards, but I easily could have gotten by using debit cards instead.
      - soulofmischief 7y ago
        So your financial history is being tracked and scrutinized. At 41, you might be able to live and die without this being a big problem. In my 20s, I worry about my ability to secure healthcare and other such necessities in my later life based on a social credit score which includes financial credit history I never opted into. Just getting on a lease is enough for a credit pull. It's unavoidable.

closeparen 7y ago

Set standard loan terms according to worst-case credit risk. Offer personalized terms to those who agree to the data collection and processing necessary for personalization. Subprime loan products already exist. They do typically run your credit, but they don't need to: the fact that you would pay for one says all that needs to be said. They're also typically offered under different branding from a respectable financial institution's loan products for people with good credit. An opt-in requirement for credit reporting only changes these basically cosmetic facts. Better-than-worst-case credit history is immensely valuable. So valuable that a lender will cut you in on tens of thousands of dollars in savings for sharing it. Of all the things you could need opt-in consent for, it's an easy sell. Everyone would buy it. We'd be in the same position.