[projectvrm] NY Times Editorial on data collection

[Dean Landsman < >]

The article has Uber as a hook, what with the ink (digital though most of it may be)  the Uber/Sarah Lacy issue has received of late.

Here's the two key paragraphs of note, IMO:

"What’s rare is not the kind of analysis Uber can do with sensitive data, but that it was publicly disclosed. Because of the user backlash, companies are moving toward secrecy. That would be detrimental to the public interest."

Continue reading the main story Write A Comment

"Uber argues that it’s doing only what other technology companies regularly do. That may be true but it only underlines why we need oversight mechanisms that cover all of them. Reputational penalties have not been sufficient incentives to encourage more responsible use of data and algorithms, especially because almost all the big players engage in similar behavior — and Uber has just been rewarded by its investors to the tune of $1.2 billion."

To me this indicates an opportunity for users of these services to apply the apps that use a modified but workable credit card masking intermediary, and withhold various data as chosen by the end user.  To some degree that would be forcing VRM compliance on companies mining all that data in addition to providing whatever service(s) they have to offer.

Facebook differs from Uber, as it is clear that the user is the product,thus it is free.  Uber (and many others) simply gather and analyze, and then are capable of selling that data.  The bad actors will make the point of how all this is clearly stated in the TOS (which few ever read).

Here's the ink to the NYTimes piece.  Note: this is an editorial piece, not news reportage:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/08/opinion/we-cant-trust-uber.html

--Dean