<story><title>Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising</title><url>https://vivaldi.com/blog/letter-ban-surveillance-based-advertising/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>pasabagi</author><text>I think there&amp;#x27;s a simpler way to achieve this. Force companies who leak personal data to pay reasonable damages to all the individuals involved, on the scale of 10-100 dollars, depending on how much personal info has been leaked.&lt;p&gt;That would make businesses very quickly reassess how much data they need to keep, and how careful they need to be with it, without requiring any really radical legislation.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>cartoonworld</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t think that&amp;#x27;s gonna cut it, but definitely on the right track. Its going to require some kind of legislation, or an insurance requirement that renders the insurers as de-facto regulators. This is still crazy hard due to the possibility of regulatory arbitrage, just open shop in Anguilla or wherever.&lt;p&gt;Without the auditing, compliance, and domain experts to verify and implement this, its going to be extremely hard to create and levy these penalties in any meaningful way. Using (legally) vague terms like &amp;quot;leak&amp;quot; &amp;quot;personal&amp;quot; &amp;quot;data&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;involved&amp;quot;, a quick trip to the local courtroom will obviate a lot of the fines for well connected C-execs and legal teams.&lt;p&gt;Data integrity needs to be baked into the equation from the start. Until it is a business requirement to ensure proper system architecture practices, data integrity, and auditing, I don&amp;#x27;t see a snowball&amp;#x27;s chance of reaching sanity. Really, we&amp;#x27;ve only barely defined the problem. Businesses have compliance departments that are totally subservient to business needs and would much rather resort to gaslighting stakeholders with silver-bullet checkbox security technology processes shaded in at the board room.&lt;p&gt;On the other side, we are now ushering in a fascinating golden age of the security rodeo. There is astonishing growth in this industry, enjoy unending contracts for Red and Blue alike. It could soon really begin to look like a Gibson novel.</text></comment>
<story><title>Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising</title><url>https://vivaldi.com/blog/letter-ban-surveillance-based-advertising/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>pasabagi</author><text>I think there&amp;#x27;s a simpler way to achieve this. Force companies who leak personal data to pay reasonable damages to all the individuals involved, on the scale of 10-100 dollars, depending on how much personal info has been leaked.&lt;p&gt;That would make businesses very quickly reassess how much data they need to keep, and how careful they need to be with it, without requiring any really radical legislation.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>handrous</author><text>Yeah, rather than targeting advertising I&amp;#x27;d prefer to get to the actual point, and target mass surveillance and collection of huge troves of personal data &lt;i&gt;no matter the purpose&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;p&gt;Ban monetizing data (no selling, no pay-for-access, no derived products) and make leaks guaranteed to be expensive, so companies only keep what they have to to operate, with some large multiplier attached to the leak fine if it was related to banned activities.&lt;p&gt;Done.&lt;p&gt;The advertising is a symptom, it&amp;#x27;s not the disease.</text></comment>