This information allows other companies to make more informed decisions. Other companies making better decisions doesn't "hurt us".

▲

topgrain2 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Companies’ executives and top investors should let us see their location data then. And open up every part of their internal comms that don’t directly disclose trade secrets. At least the metadata!

It doesn’t hurt them, just lets us make better decisions, after all. There does not exist a good reason they’d object!

	▲	charcircuit 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You can buy it from a data broker. They aren't obligated to give you this data for free.

▲

blitzar 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We collect your data, sell it to the highest bidder and sun ourselves on a yacht we bought with the proceeds ... "to help you".

▲

steve_j_choi 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

More informed decision to raise revenue. Is that necessarily helping us? When you say its not affecting us, us as who? Just sounds like a karma farmer.

▲

Avicebron 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And when those "informed decisions" are denying healthcare/insurance/loans/what have you?

▲

charcircuit 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I personally see it as similar to fraud if you are deliberately hiding a piece of information that makes you riskier to insure or loan money to. In order to accurately assess risk you need personalized data. So I see this as being a more fair deal.

It's like when the internet made it possible to look up the price of good easily how it made it less likely for buyers to be able to lowball people. These price guides may be bad for these buyers, but it provides a more fair deal for these seller.

	▲	iamnothere 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I agree. If someone is found to be employed by a data broker, for example, they should be uninsurable and should not receive loans.