Comments on: Can privacy be a premium service?

By: error 404

error 404 — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:39:15 +0000

Souriez, vous êtes fichés

La documentation française a la bonne idée de publier un 'Médias et vie privée' (info via Infostratège, qui a établi par ailleurs une bibliographie sélective intéressante sur le droit de l'information). La vie privée est de fait de plus en ...

By: Scott Germaise

Scott Germaise — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:56:20 +0000

Privacy is already a premium service in some areas. Every time someone uses a supermarket loyalty card, they give up purchase information to get whatever the special discounts are. Anyone not using the card pays more.

Every time someone uses a web site, some information is collected. Anyone who pays for anonymizer software of services gives up less information, but pays.

Every time someone clicks with their DVR remote, they're giving up information when their television usage behavior gets uploaded. Those without such services don't pay in dollars, but they would do without such services.

In these cases, those concerned enough with privacy are the tiniest slice of the consumer population. Right now, there's a lot of vocalizing going on, but not a whole lot of the general population really understands the issue beyond the idea of identity theft. So they're really not behaving any differently.

A lot of these ideas are actually well explored by Jeffrey Rosen, David Brin, to a lesser degree myself and others.

We are now finally reaching some inflection points where broader concerns are coming to light. It should be interesting to watch and participate in the debate.

By: GigaOM Why do we have Facebook Fatigue? «

GigaOM Why do we have Facebook Fatigue? « — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 23:01:01 +0000

[...] What we need is something more intimate, more private. It’s not about the number of friends, but it’s about connection. (My previous post about Privacy also touches on some of these issues.) [...]

By: The Law of Mobility » Blog Archive » Business Models: July 2007

The Law of Mobility » Blog Archive » Business Models: July 2007 — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 19:25:38 +0000

[...] Can privacy be a premium service? [...]

By: Adam

Adam — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:44:01 +0000

Privacy won’t work as a premuim service here for several reasons: first, customers don’t understand the threat, second, companies can market privacy less expensively than delivering technical solutions, and finally, the privacy-concerned are unlikely to believe that the company really implemented privacy for their money.

(I worked for Austin for three years, and have spent a lot of time thinking about how we were ahead of our time, and what else we might have done better.)

By: Austin Hill

Austin Hill — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 02:18:03 +0000

As an entrepreneur who raised $75 million for developing privacy services from 1997 to 2001 I spent almost 10 years working on privacy, anonymity and security services.

Anyone thinking of looking that the privacy space might be interested in this case study on Zero-Knowledge Systems. http://tinyurl.com/2q3kqp

The company is now called Radialpoint and is very successful in a new business. http://tinyurl.com/349x5h

Maybe as Zero-Knowledge Systems we were ahead of our time?

By: Jesse Kopelman

Jesse Kopelman — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:10:18 +0000

I think what Om is really asking is whether anonymity, not privacy, can be a premium service. I think the answer is yes, but the market may be much smaller than you think. Expectations of anonymity vary from generation to generation, and you may be an old foggy on this one Om. Still, the old foggy market can be lucrative -- just like with the Corniches, Blue Label, and Cubans .

By: kimo crossman

kimo crossman — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:44:14 +0000

No one has to pay for the privacy of their library check-out records...

It's a social value enforced by law.

By: DIGITALISTIC » Blog Archive » links for 2007-07-26

DIGITALISTIC » Blog Archive » links for 2007-07-26 — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:23:50 +0000

[...] Can privacy be a premium service? (tags: privacy gigaom) [...]

By: Steve Shaw

Steve Shaw — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:17:43 +0000

My first thought was the old Bell "privacy manager" service. For $5/month, calls to your home number were front-ended by a screener. Over time, the FCC launched the 'do not call' list.

Can the rise of a premium service be used to highlight an underlying problem, in turn helping to drive public policy?

Certainly there are differences between a POTS line and internet surfing, but fundamentally if enough people 'revolt' by paying, perhaps Washington takes notice.

By: jm ervin

jm ervin — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:17:49 +0000

Perhaps not as a paid premium service if only because of the questionable and unbounded concept of rent-for-privacy. But a privacy policy that is highly skewed in favor of the user can be, as you suggest, a significant marketing advantage. In terms of the protection of user data smaller companies, especially newer ones, may not evoke the level of trust accorded to established giants. But smaller more agile companies can gain advantage over the big guys by offering a privacy policy that is aggressively skewed in favor of the user. Just a few basic points such as minimal data retention in terms of both time and quantity, no reselling or sharing and complete purge on account termination. The bar seems to be pretty low right now.

By: TD

TD — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:54:38 +0000

Why should I have to pay for my privacy? It should be a right, not something I have to pay for...

Privacy should be the default, not an opt-in premium service.

By: Libran Lover

Libran Lover — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:48:58 +0000

Pardon my negative tone, but I cannot believe that you are seriously talking about privacy as a paid service! I mean, come on, where is the ethics in that? Rich people more entitled to privacy than poor people?

How is this different from blackmail? "We have information about you. Pay us or we will use / leak such information!"

Privacy should be each individual's right. It should not be something s/he pays for.

By: ronald

ronald — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:10:22 +0000

Can privacy be a premium service?
Simple answer. NO
Because we are not leaking information as a data point in time. We are leaking information throughout our connections and actions on a continuous time line. Friends, Google, Family to name a few. Everybody and everything has to be secured to prevent data leaks. If I connect the data around you I get a pretty good picture about you.
In other words, if you just pay a few services you might just as well forget it.

By: Kimo Crossman

Kimo Crossman — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:31:13 +0000

This is what ACLU and EFF has been asking re the free SF Wi-Fi privacy – why do the paying EarthLink customers get better privacy than the poor free customers who pay for free Wi-Fi with their privacy.

see here:

http://www.aclunc.org/issues/technology/bytes_and_pieces/make_free_wi-fi_truly_free.shtml

By: G

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:14:55 +0000

OM – great post – while privacy is talked about often – it is mostly a sidebar discussion. How about you start a series on this matter – one post a day – make it a one-year effort at a minimum, invite your fellow bloggers (the likes of the Arrington’s – follow through by calling in the WSJ and NYT guys) and beat the drums a bit more frequently. And challenge the Google’s of the world to a serious debate in blogosphere.

For starters how about a poll from GigaOM on what your readers would like for the opening volley.

If anyone can do it today – it is you Brother OM!