Which? survey finds people would actually pay the online giants not to take their data

On the other hand, sweeten the deal with a couple of quid and they'll be a lot more happy to share


Consumer guardian Which? has attempted to put a price on people's personal information as it ramps up pressure for tougher rules around data-ravenous tech giants such as Google and Facebook.

The British consumer champion has repeatedly argued that people are uncomfortable about the amount of data collected and stored by tech companies from online activity and gadgets in the home.

Now it has changed tack and commissioned a 111-page report – Value of the Choice Requirement Remedy – that attempts to estimate the amount of money people in the UK would be prepared to pay Facebook and Google in return for greater control over how their data is collected and used.

It interviewed just over 4,000 users of those platforms, finding they would cough up, on average, £1.09 a month if that would guarantee that they only receive generic adverts and that their data is not collected.

"Aggregating this for all UK users of Google and Facebook for a full year gives a total estimated value for this choice of £1.14bn," said Which?

The research found that while many people do have concerns, some are prepared to part with their data if they were paid for it in some way.

To prove the point, only a quarter (27 per cent) of the users quizzed earlier this year said they would be happy to receive targeted adverts. When they were offered something in return – such as an Amazon voucher – that figure went up to four-fifths (81 per cent).

Unsurprisingly, the survey found that the larger the financial reward, the more likely consumers were to choose targeted adverts with the mean valuation per Facebook/ Google user being £4.03 a month.

The publication of the research comes just a day before the deadline (1 October) of a consultation by the UK's competition watchdog as it looks to unleash its new Digital Markets Unit (DMU).

The consultation was unveiled in July and trailed as a precursor for a new "regulatory regime for the most powerful digital firms, promoting greater competition and innovation in these markets and protecting consumers and businesses from unfair practices."

Proposals included giving the DMU the power to "suspend, block and reverse decisions by tech giants, and issue fines of up to 10 per cent of turnover for serious breaches."

Speaking in July, Rocio Concha, Which? director of Policy and Advocacy said: "Reforming the competition regime will help to build a fairer and more competitive tech sector that will work better for consumers, giving them more control and more choice - including over how their data will be collected and used.

"It will be crucial that the government provides the new Digital Markets Unit with the necessary tools, including robust oversight and tough enforcement powers to punish companies that act anti-competitively."

Fast-forward to today and Concha – whose organisation has had an active role in the consultation – has repeatedly made calls for tougher regulation to protect consumers.

"Which? has repeatedly raised the issue of consumers not feeling in control over how their data is collected and used by online platforms. The new Digital Markets Unit must be empowered by the government to introduce remedies that promote competition and reduce consumer harm," said Concha.

While Which? is making a last-gasp pitch to protect consumers, tech giants will also be waiting to see the outcome of the consultation.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Facebook said that the social media giant has "always been transparent about how we never use sensitive personal data for ad targeting."

Google said it was "advancing the field of privacy-preserving technology… [to give people] confidence that their privacy and choices are respected." ®

Similar topics


Other stories you might like

  • IT staffing, recruitment biz settles claims it discriminated against Americans
    Foreign workers favored over US residents because that's what clients wanted, allegedly

    Amtex Systems Incorporated, an IT staffing and recruiting firm based in New York City, has agreed to settle claims it discriminated against American workers because company clients wanted workers with temporary visas.

    The US Department of Justice on Wednesday announced the agreement, which followed from a US citizen filing a discrimination complaint with the DoJ's Civil Rights Division’s Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER).

    "IT staffing agencies cannot unlawfully exclude applicants or impose additional burdens because of someone’s citizenship or immigration status," said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, in a statement. "The Civil Rights Division is committed to enforcing the law to ensure that job applicants, including US workers, are protected from unlawful discrimination."

    Continue reading
  • Will this be one of the world's first RISC-V laptops?
    A sneak peek at a notebook that could be revealed this year

    Pic As Apple and Qualcomm push for more Arm adoption in the notebook space, we have come across a photo of what could become one of the world's first laptops to use the open-source RISC-V instruction set architecture.

    In an interview with The Register, Calista Redmond, CEO of RISC-V International, signaled we will see a RISC-V laptop revealed sometime this year as the ISA's governing body works to garner more financial and development support from large companies.

    It turns out Philipp Tomsich, chair of RISC-V International's software committee, dangled a photo of what could likely be the laptop in question earlier this month in front of RISC-V Week attendees in Paris.

    Continue reading
  • Did ID.me hoodwink Americans with IRS facial-recognition tech, senators ask
    Biz tells us: Won't someone please think of the ... fraud we've stopped

    Democrat senators want the FTC to investigate "evidence of deceptive statements" made by ID.me regarding the facial-recognition technology it controversially built for Uncle Sam.

    ID.me made headlines this year when the IRS said US taxpayers would have to enroll in the startup's facial-recognition system to access their tax records in the future. After a public backlash, the IRS reconsidered its plans, and said taxpayers could choose non-biometric methods to verify their identity with the agency online.

    Just before the IRS controversy, ID.me said it uses one-to-one face comparisons. "Our one-to-one face match is comparable to taking a selfie to unlock a smartphone. ID.me does not use one-to-many facial recognition, which is more complex and problematic. Further, privacy is core to our mission and we do not sell the personal information of our users," it said in January.

    Continue reading
  • Meet Wizard Spider, the multimillion-dollar gang behind Conti, Ryuk malware
    Russia-linked crime-as-a-service crew is rich, professional – and investing in R&D

    Analysis Wizard Spider, the Russia-linked crew behind high-profile malware Conti, Ryuk and Trickbot, has grown over the past five years into a multimillion-dollar organization that has built a corporate-like operating model, a year-long study has found.

    In a technical report this week, the folks at Prodaft, which has been tracking the cybercrime gang since 2021, outlined its own findings on Wizard Spider, supplemented by info that leaked about the Conti operation in February after the crooks publicly sided with Russia during the illegal invasion of Ukraine.

    What Prodaft found was a gang sitting on assets worth hundreds of millions of dollars funneled from multiple sophisticated malware variants. Wizard Spider, we're told, runs as a business with a complex network of subgroups and teams that target specific types of software, and has associations with other well-known miscreants, including those behind REvil and Qbot (also known as Qakbot or Pinkslipbot).

    Continue reading
  • Supreme Court urged to halt 'unconstitutional' Texas content-no-moderation law
    Everyone's entitled to a viewpoint but what's your viewpoint on what exactly is and isn't a viewpoint?

    A coalition of advocacy groups on Tuesday asked the US Supreme Court to block Texas' social media law HB 20 after the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals last week lifted a preliminary injunction that had kept it from taking effect.

    The Lone Star State law, which forbids large social media platforms from moderating content that's "lawful-but-awful," as advocacy group the Center for Democracy and Technology puts it, was approved last September by Governor Greg Abbott (R). It was immediately challenged in court and the judge hearing the case imposed a preliminary injunction, preventing the legislation from being enforced, on the basis that the trade groups opposing it – NetChoice and CCIA – were likely to prevail.

    But that injunction was lifted on appeal. That case continues to be litigated, but thanks to the Fifth Circuit, HB 20 can be enforced even as its constitutionality remains in dispute, hence the coalition's application [PDF] this month to the Supreme Court.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022