

Are “free” web-services cheese in a mousetrap? - dannypovolotski
http://povolotski.me/2013/09/29/free-web-services-cheese-mousetrap-or-stop-selling-privacy-1/
The last few months everyone seems to be freaked out about NSA spying on the world (and their own citizens in particular). It seems to even have become fashionable to complain about surveillance, demand stuff from congressmen, CEO’s, the government. It’s all very nice, but people seem to be missing the point:
Your privacy is being sold every single day to the lowest bidder for a price as low as 5$ per year, and the NSA isn’t the only buyer.
======
DanielBMarkham
I know it's popular to use the "you're either the buyer, the seller, or the
product" meme for this, but I think sometimes the idea that we're the product
hurts more than it helps.

This is more like a case where somebody is selling something and they don't
have full knowledge of what they're selling. Companies like Google came to us
with a deal: give us your email business, and we'll provide it for free -- as
long as we can mine the data to serve you ads. That's how we'll get paid.

But that was bullshit -- and I don't think it was the fault of the companies
involved. The problem is, once you start instrumenting the internet, _every
activity you take online is part of some massive surveillance mechanism
directed at your personal life_. What started as a simple transaction between
you and Google, or you and your ISP, now can involve any other organization
that can get that information from those companies.

Sure, some companies are vehement about protecting your privacy, but with
governments involved, it doesn't matter. They run the show. Also, this is a
"weakest link" problem. Even if Google and 90% of all the other companies you
deal with have some technical way of keeping others from your data, but as
along as the other 10% is compromised, it doesn't matter. Keystroke readers
defeat just about anything. Trans-Atlantic wiretaps allow governments of all
sizes a fun playground full of data.

So the real deal isn't what these companies offered. It's more like "use the
internet, and we'll track you like an animal. We'll know where you go, what
opinions you have, what you eat, who your friends are, and lots more. And
we'll keep that information forever"

That's not an acceptable deal. We're the seller, the product is our
interaction and the history of it, but we have been seriously misinformed by
the buyer about the nature of the deal involved. This is a serious problem and
needs immediate resolution. Nobody directly lied to us, but we were
misinformed and screwed just the same. Nobody in their right mind would have
agreed to such a thing.

------
Create
When Microsoft, Intel, Apple, Cisco et al. ask for your money, it doesn't stop
them to also ask others for more.

In fact, they are legally and extra-legally compelled to do so. Besides their
on profit and extra-profit, obviously.

~~~
dannypovolotski
True. However, it's in the interest of any company to protect its' customers.

I'm not saying the government wouldn't be able to tap into our communications,
and it doesn't have to be dealt with, but that as long as we're the product,
and not the customer - no one really cares about our interests.

We like free stuff, but we don't always realize that it makes us the sold
product, and not the customer.

~~~
Oletros
My God, the product is ad space, you're not the product being sold.

And I don't get what difference makes being a free service or not, government
will tap exactly the same.

~~~
sp332
If people aren't the product, then why is ad space seen by more people more
valuable?

~~~
Oletros
Is this a joke?

~~~
sp332
No. People are valuable. Space is just a way to get to the people.

------
prottmann
That is too generally, most of companies allow a free usage, because they want
to convince about their service and set the hurdle of usage as low as
possible.

Companies like google, yahoo, facebook, ... are a different kind of "free"
web-service.

Or free 2 play games, free players are "content" in that games.

------
oesmith
This argument applies to any web service. There's no guarantee that a $5/yr
paid web service isn't profiting from your data the same as anyone else. Why
only make $5 when you could make $35?

It really boils down to who you choose to trust with your data. As an insider,
I'm _very_ happy with the privacy controls within Google. I'd be more worried
about a less well-established player, regardless of whether they charge a fee
for their product.

~~~
Create
The data authorities in France had ordered Google to comply with its national
law by defining specified and explicit purposes; to inform users about how it
was processing their data; to define retention periods for the information it
holds; to not proceed, without legal basis, with the "potentially unlimited
combination of users' data"; to fairly slurp and mine passive users' data and
get consent before storing cookies on their device.

But Google has declined and criticised French data protection legislation by
claiming the law is not applicable to its online services.

[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/27/google_refuses_to_co...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/27/google_refuses_to_comply_to_cnil_privacy_demands_in_europe/)

------
olegp
All the "if you're not paying you are not customer, you are the product" talk
aside, I find it risky to use free SaaS for work because it most likely
doesn't have a viable business model and could go under any moment.

That's why in the StartHQ SaaS directory
([https://starthq.com](https://starthq.com)) we clearly mark which services
are free. This is not meant as a positive sign, but as a warning.

------
Sprint
Quite a hyperbole. I use many free "services" on the web and I provide some
myself because they are someone's hobby (sometimes mine).

------
n0nick
> Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn were all among the 10 biggest IPO’s ever

Twitter's IPO? Not quite yet...

