Forrester Research 2016 will be a good year for consumer privacy solutions…
If only that were true.
When they say “mobile wallet”, they do know that the data collected on any given transaction will actually be a larger amount than in the past, right? http://phys.org/news/2013-03-mobile-wallet-technology-privacy.html
And tiered service models. I’ll let you in on a funny - in the morbid sense - example that I ran across the other day. Navigate to https://disconnect.me and scroll to the very bottom. Under which column do you see the ability to “Understand Privacy Policies”, the Free tier? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
Let me FTFY:
In the Age of the Consumer, shiny new things, crafty wordplay and the appearance of valuing privacy can no longer be an afterthought. Privacy policies are game changers; they will be to organizations in 2016 what 9/11 was to the NSA. These blank checks will simultaneously convince regulators, business partners, and consumers that businesses care about privacy more than profits - at the same time that these same businesses are harvesting the personal data of millions of unsuspecting innocents. And those who can afford good lawyers will stand out from their competition."
The point of posting this is that it indicates a recognition of increased consumer demand for privacy solutions, such as SAFEnetwork. Tada!
And the point of my reply was that it is economically feasible for companies to reply to such a demand with a show-and-dance instead of actual reform.
EDIT: Ahh, I see where you were going with this now. Yes, it does represent the demand for protocols such as the SAFE Network.
EDIT2: To explain the hostility in my response to this topic, I just wanted to share my opinion being that in order to ensure mass amounts of privacy reform, it becomes necessary to both (1)provide visceral, easy-to-use improvements over existing options shoved right into the face of the end-user as well as (2)maintain backwards compatibility with the existing options as well. At the same time this is going on, it needs to (3)sever any and all connections to existing insecure protocols and it must be (4)designed to prevent any coercion and/or force that might be brought to bear against it.
As a side note - the SAFE Network achieves (3) and (4), and in time probably (1). As opposed to the given examples, which provide (1) and (2) at the sacrifice of the others.
EDIT3: I just re-read the article:
…as firms consider introducing premium pricing for privacy-enhancing services…
Hey! Yo! Over here! … Hey guys!..You’re going the wrong way!!!
Smacz the collectivist syndrome has been ailing the humanity since ancient times, and in more recent history the issue was described like this:
“Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither"
The average citizen loves free partially because he can socialize and externalize the cost of his carelessness on to his dear fellow citizens.
Do you prefer to empty your browser cache or have the State mandate what can be stored in there and what kind of annoying cookie notices and “privacy policies” need to be posted on every single Web site in the country?
If you’re an Average Joe, you should prefer to do nothing and that the cost of privacy measures is transferred to content providers and your fellow citizens who don’t access the internet.
Original content providers (Web sites) are facing the same problem - people don’t want to pay with money (actually currency), so they make the user pay indirectly by reselling the users’ aggregate stats. And why shouldn’t they? No one has to browse any sites (except the government sites, of course - you can’t decline that offer; if the only way to pay some tax or excise is over the Web, try to excuse yourself from that).
Premium privacy-enhancing services: it’s actually an okay idea (although it won’t fly). If you don’t want to see ads and have your data “aggregated”, pay up. Or install an ad blocker and browser for free, that’s also okay (just as it is okay to not visit the Web site).
I am okay with adblockers, but I may pay for some sites, depending on how much they want to charge. In the end I don’t care if they call it “privacy enhancing service”, “ad free browsing”, or “membership”. There’s no difference.
If I recall correctly somewhere I saw that Google makes about $100 (or thereabout) per user every year. Let’s say $30 of that is profit. In theory all the sites that the average user visits should not charge more than $100/year (total for all sites). For some heavy users the actual figure may be higher, but I think it sounds about right, $10/month.
However I disagree with the idea that people are looking to replace their free browsing experience with paid-for privacy. They don’t. In a recent poll in France 80% (or so) of the polled said they prefer more security than more freedom. In reality the average person prefers more state control of the media and telcos. A minority (10%) cares. That doesn’t make it a trend and shouldn’t register with any private company. Free content infested with ads and tracking beacons will keep going strong.
Privacy is now a heavily sought after commodity. Tech firms are doing what they can to capitalize on this. Companies know their current systems are need to be upgraded before they can go to market with reliable solutions.
Source: work for one of the worlds largest private tech organisations on the planet.
I do not believe that it’s in the economic interests of any given company to disable data aggregation if you’re paying the company. Sure, they may call it “ad free browsing”, so maybe you won’t get ads, but wouldn’t the companies face a strong monetary incentive to continue data aggregation regardless if you’re a paying customer or not?
My point being that the services they offer may alleviate the intrusiveness of the collection on the front-end, but the data will most likely still be getting collected.
 upgrade to our “gold service” and you won’t just get the 50% ad reduction of our premium plan but a full 80% reduction in ads!
Uh-huh. Take a look at the comments in this topic about the privacy enhancing laptop and take some time to reconsider… Even privacy-favoring (if not privacy enthusiasts) people such as members of this forum don’t want to pay an extra dime for better privacy. And similar comments can be found in topics related to privacy-enhanced phones and software.
But the difference is you could actually sue them to get your money back and then some.
Right now they bullshit you with fine print, so it is what it is and since it’s free, it’s almost pointless to sue.
If they got paid to do A and then ended up doing B, they could get hit by a private, class lawsuit which could turn out to be pricey. 20K subbers, $10/year, multiply by 3 for damages… More than the total salary fund for a medium sized site.
What on Earth are you on about?
Who said anything about paying more for privacy.
It’s a competitive edge!
A marketing tool!
If said company can offer their customers privacy and in fact guarantee it to their best ability and knowledge said company will have an edge over their competitors. It’s as simple as that because consumers are demanding privacy and because as we move to more connectivity its just common sense to secure it. No company in the world wants to be the one that accidentally leaks private or secure information about their customers and have that hit the papers and no consumer wants his or her private data shared with others.
The company I work for makes everything from technology for autonomous vehicles to power tools, washing machines, boilers, industrial and building equipment, hydraulics, security systems etc and I can tell you that we are looking at privacy and security in every aspect of our business as we move to internet enabled connectivity.
What you said:
It’s as simple as that because consumers are demanding privacy and because as we move to more connectivity its just common sense to secure it.
I see you point, they demand more privacy but don’t want to pay for it…
Some demand! As in: “I need a new car, but I don’t want to pay for it.”
But I already said that in my earlier comment, which you couldn’t understand.
I guess #5 for mass adoption would be free. As in beer.
I still don’t know what you’re on about… but OK.
He means dude that while people want privacy they aren’t willing to pay extra money for premium packages, VPN services, or other ad free and privacy securing options. The attitude is basically "I’m paying for my internet, that should be enough. From there they expect businesses NOT to spy on them. To some degree I agree. I mean it would be kind of weird if some guy from some store was following me around everywhere or planted a bug on me just to attempt to increase sales but that’s exactly how tracking cookies and data aggregate works. But then again we’ve always had spam, it’s called junk mail. In some ways businesses have adopted the model of that shady clerk you hand some money to to give you a bit of information or point you in the right direction. “Oh no we don’t give out our clients information because that would be wrong!” “Here’s a heap of cash.” “And here’s their data sir. Please come again!” So it kind of breaks down to is it more profitable for businesses to have integrity and keep one’s data secure or is it more profitable to sell it to he highest bidder? And then there’s the third option that SAFE presents: Don’t give them the data in the first place.
Indeed, this thread has nothing to do with what consumers would pay for privacy, I posted the information as evidence that they care about privacy, and increasingly so.
Not long ago, the argument was that they don’t care about it. Now it’s that they won’t pay for it. But isn’t that actually a further point in favour of SAFEnetwork.
Currently they pay with their privacy - which clearly is a compromise for those who want to retain it.
SAFEnetwork is an alternative: pay with spare resources, at no additional cost. Farming for profit is another issue, this is about consumers who can farm to pay for their usage of the network and it’s Safecoin based services.
Privacy and security look to be synonyms in some contexts. It seems likely that that privacy will become a matter of liability for firms and it will simply be a required feature. This will be especially the case as free end user owned alternatives to the common carriers arise.
Yeah and what’s your point? I’m not disagreeing, lol
Personally I value privacy that’s why I found Maid Safe and expect to pay what’s charged for being on it.
I bought and paid and renewed an encrypted phone just to learn about it. Blackphone. Do I need an encrypted phone, no. Do I operate it well? Not really, certainly not fully. But if I get some money to invest and the sector takes off on an unstoppable trend upward I want to know what I’m buying into to select the best equity in the form of shares that I can.
People expect to pay their way, its nonsense that they won’t or don’t.
Everybody wants a deal yes, but everybody appreciates value. I agree, it’s that simple.
Thanks for posting this update on the forecast for value of privacy - that its growing. It will probably become an economic bubble at some point.
May I say it, it’s Christmas ---- Buy Maid Safe!
(or it’s tracking coal in your stocking)