Surprisingly difficult to understand what this thing is or does. Seems like you can "donate" your browsing behavior to science for doing studies in a kinda anonymous privacy protecting way.
It doesn't even sound anonymous. It sounds like they just audit that the partner aggregates the data once delivered to them. Some sort of pinky-promise.
But, realistically, what recourse do users have if there's a breach?
A few years ago I got a letter from Washington State University saying that they'd obtained my personal health data (which I never directly consented to, nor had I interacted with WSU in any way prior to receiving this latter) and subsequently allowed it to be stolen by unknown malicious actors. In case you're curious, they kept the data on an unencrypted hard drive in a physical safe that was then physically stolen.
There was some class action pittance that meant nothing to me, and WSU does not seem to have been subject to any meaningful consequences. It seems to be viewed as a cost of doing business sort of thing. For all of us who had their data stolen, the horse has left the barn, and I see no real deterrent effect. This seems to be the norm when data breaches happen.
So while "pinky promise" might be a bit hyperbolic, there is a lot of truth to it in general and I don't know how this case is supposed to be any different. If there is some paradigm-breaking accountability mechanism built in, I'd love to hear more about it.
> There was some class action pittance that meant nothing to me, and WSU does not seem to have been subject to any meaningful consequences.
Class action suits, from my understanding, are about 1) compensating the initial plaintiffs, 2) setting an appropriate punitive damage to redress the harm to society, and 3) distributing that punitive damage in an equitable fashion.
You are benefiting from 2) and 3) as a claimant in a class-action. 2) is where the meaningful consequence happens, in my estimation.
I agree. I haven't read beyond the linked page but my take is that it doesn't do anything about the data that you're already "sharing", but provides an additional mechanism for you to share data with specific parties in a controlled manner.
All this seems reasonable if that's the case, but the page is misselling it.
> All this seems reasonable if that's the case, but the page is misselling it.
There are limits to how much info you can fit into one page. Marketing pages are built in such a way that they guide you to where the detailed pages are.
>Then why have the linked page. If it's literally not informative enough than it's just a poorly written press release.
Usually marketing pages will include just enough information and imagery to grab your attention. There will be some links embedded which ultimately lead to more and more information.
Basically, if you're interested in learning more, you'll be motivated to read/click further. If it doesn't interest you, you leave having taken a fraction of the time than had the page been filled with all the details.
I guess what I'm getting at is: if article does not provide enough background to even be able to participate in a discussion about the subject, it's a bad article.
> Softer fields are likely to be found, even if perhaps at lower frequencies, in the physical and the biological sciences. Conversely, there is no reason why high-consensus fields should not exist in the social sciences, too.
