logoalt Hacker News

erentzyesterday at 11:13 PM2 repliesview on HN

What is the rationale for going to the trouble of such a law but only banning sale, rather than all sharing?


Replies

Frost1xyesterday at 11:26 PM

Good question, I’m curious too. 911 services and cell providers come to mind, as well as subpoenaed data from law enforcement? Perhaps?

Third party commercial entities like cell providers are collecting and sharing it out of necessity but I’m guessing not selling it?

But that opens an interesting loop hole it seems where you could open a share agreement and then through other mechanisms recover the fee you’d otherwise charge for.

Provider A wants to sell data to provider B and provider B wants to buy from provider A but they legally can’t. So instead provider A just tucks the cost in some other unrelated contract with provider B with a wink wink, handshake, nod, their “relationship” then just makes them want to share the data at “no charge.” Both know the fees are tucked in other agreements, although only provider A knows the itemized cost, provider B just wonders if the cost of the other package + their friendship handshake sharing of geolocation data is worth that total cost.

To be fair, until money comes into play people tend to be less nefarious about their uses of information and intentions. Not always, but on average.

polski-gyesterday at 11:33 PM

Because the data is very helpful in pricing risk of drivers in insurance premiums. Obviously risky drivers should be charged a higher rate.

show 2 replies