Senator Amy Klobuchar floats idea of taxing companies that profit from user data

[William Gayde]

The big picture: In an interview at the SXSW conference, Minnesota Senator and 2020 presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar discussed the idea of taxing companies that make money off user data. This wasn't an official statement of policy, but it's still an interesting talking point that could disrupt much of the tech industry if implemented.

Klobuchar views user data as a public resource like roads and has considered taxing them in a similar way. She summarized the idea as follows:

[Tech companies] use us, and we’re their commodity, and we’re not getting anything out of it. When they sell our data to someone else, well, maybe they’re going to have to tell us so we can put some kind of a tax on it [...] If you go on a truck, if you send stuff on rail, you have to pay for the roads and you have to pay for the rail. And maybe there’s some way we can do that with large sets of data, when [companies] use it or when they sell it.

While this may seem like a simple way to tax the huge tech companies that often pay little to no taxes, implementing it may prove difficult. Details like what qualifies as user data, under what scenarios it should be taxed, and which companies would be subject to this tax would all have to be worked out. Additionally, some of the companies profiting off user data don't necessarily do things ethically or at least transparently, so it may be difficult to keep tabs on everyone involved.

Klobuchar agreed that this type of tax may hinder data-science based startups, so she believes a tax like this should only apply to "larger platforms, not startups." This type of tax has been proposed previously in Europe, but didn't gain enough traction to be passed.

While Klobuchar is the first candidate to discuss a tax like this, other candidates have also voiced support for regulating tech companies. Senator Warren has talked about breaking up major tech companies that run ubiquitous platforms (Google, Apple, Amazon, others) to promote fair competition between third parties and the platform owners who possess all the data about users and purchases, which gives them a privileged position on decision making.

Regardless of which candidate gets the nomination, it's clear that tech policy and consumer privacy will be a major part of the 2020 election.

Lead Photo Credit: Jack Plunkett

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/79118-senator-amy-klobuchar-floats-idea-taxing-companies-profit.html

 

[p51d007]

Tax tax tax...that's all DC knows how to do!

 

[Evernessince]

Tax tax tax...that's all DC knows how to do!

Klobuchar is radical among democrats.

Taxing companies that make money off user data almost seems like a joke. Most companies shouldn't be able to sell data in the first place, let alone the government wanting a slice of something as questionable as that. It's be like the government taxing the illegal sale of LSD. How is that going to work again?

 

[Nobina]

Instead of banning it they just want a piece of the pie. Reasonable world this is. At least give me some of the money.

 

[QuantumPhysics]

Tax tax tax...that's all DC knows how to do!

Republicans give tax cuts and watch the deficit and national debt rise.

At least the Democrats go Cash & Carry.

The real problem is SPENDING.

We spend close to $55,000 per SECOND (Over $1,000,000,000,000 a year)

And Republicans won't cut from the military while Democrats won't cut from social services.

 

[Uncle Al]

I would much rather see an out right ban on collecting and selling users data as well as purchased data being used against the individual such as insurance, medical care, etc, etc. Taxes are too easy to get around and any CPA worth their salt already has a method and means to do just that. And to make that law have some teeth, hold the Owners, CEO's and other corporate officers directly responsible with mandatory minimum's. Unfortunately, as we have all seen, there are too many loopholes for them to slip through and with so much off our elected officials owing their elections to these big donation's plus their own ignorance of the tech world getting the chances of such a law are virtually nil .......

 

[treetops]

Whenever you sign up for a retail store "free" discount card you are giving away data. I never fill out the form, your card will still work. Schools sell student data to private companies.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jordan...-the-right-to-sell-student-data/#40248e7868b5

Merchants\Politicians have been collecting data on peasant\customer habits since the beginning of commerce\government. What constitutes collecting data? If a store tracks how many red lollipops it sells vs blue and in turn buys more or less based off that data, are they collecting data? If the owner agrees to help out a new store owner at cost on his stocking supplies is he selling data? Who do you think pays for those phone survey polls? It's not your local news station... Tax the politicians for intrusively collecting data on us. At least they don't collect data in our dreams. Well as long as you don't talk in your sleep, your cell phone is probably listening.

 

[captaincranky]

I would much rather see an out right ban on collecting and selling users data as well as purchased data being used against the individual such as insurance, medical care, etc, etc...[ ]....

Yeah, they should. But then again, imagine the outrage when people start getting monthly bills from Google, one for each of its individual services, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, ad nauseum

"But I though you said this was free", said 3 billion people.. "It was" said Google, YouTube, etc., "until you stopped us from selling your personal information", they continued.

Of course Facebook would likely charge you just to cover up the fact they were still selling your data under the table.

 

[Evernessince]

Yeah, they should. But then again, imagine the outrage when people start getting monthly bills from Google, one for each of its individual services, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, ad nauseum

"But I though you said this was free", said 3 billion people.. "It was" said Google, YouTube, etc., "until you stopped us from selling your personal information", they continued.

Of course Facebook would likely charge you just to cover up the fact they were still selling your data under the table.

Honestly YouTube likely makes enough money from ads alone. I can only imagine how much they are making off selling data you generate while watching YouTube.

And yeah, as you pointed out companies will do as they please until the law stops them or the fines outweigh the profits. I don't see that happening anytime soon. Zuck can come before congress a million times for facebook's handling of data but it doesn't mean squat if the root issue isn't addressed.

 

[QuantumPhysics]

Honestly YouTube likely makes enough money from ads alone. I can only imagine how much they are making off selling data you generate while watching YouTube.

And yeah, as you pointed out companies will do as they please until the law stops them or the fines outweigh the profits. I don't see that happening anytime soon. Zuck can come before congress a million times for facebook's handling of data but it doesn't mean squat if the root issue isn't addressed.

Selling metadata is about TARGETING ADS.

The problem is, people are desperate to use Youtube without watching Ads because most ads are untargeted.

People actually want a system that could purposefully send them an ad for very specific products they want at very specific times.

So what does the internet do?

they wait till you send in a query for a specific item and then they bombard you with ads for that item or similar items if they don't think you found what you wanted.

If they had a system that offered me exactly what I was looking for, I'd be fine with it. But they can't read my mind. Or my wallet.

 

[gigantor21]

Honestly YouTube likely makes enough money from ads alone. I can only imagine how much they are making off selling data you generate while watching YouTube.

And yeah, as you pointed out companies will do as they please until the law stops them or the fines outweigh the profits. I don't see that happening anytime soon. Zuck can come before congress a million times for facebook's handling of data but it doesn't mean squat if the root issue isn't addressed.

Selling metadata is about TARGETING ADS.

The problem is, people are desperate to use Youtube without watching Ads because most ads are untargeted.

People actually want a system that could purposefully send them an ad for very specific products they want at very specific times.

So what does the internet do?

they wait till you send in a query for a specific item and then they bombard you with ads for that item or similar items if they don't think you found what you wanted.

If they had a system that offered me exactly what I was looking for, I'd be fine with it. But they can't read my mind. Or my wallet.

And that's the irony, isn't it?

Despite the biggest, richest companies on Earth, with the best programmers and engineers on Earth, mining a metric crapton of data from billions of people every day, their holy algorithms are crap in practice. So not only is privacy an afterthought, the intended use of the data is a total joke.

To which I'm sure they probably think "well, clearly we don't have enough!"

 

[comicsgod53]

Desires to as mean to American taxpayers as she is to her staff.

 

[QuantumPhysics]

And that's the irony, isn't it?

Despite the biggest, richest companies on Earth, with the best programmers and engineers on Earth, mining a metric crapton of data from billions of people every day, their holy algorithms are crap in practice. So not only is privacy an afterthought, the intended use of the data is a total joke.

To which I'm sure they probably think "well, clearly we don't have enough!"

There is NO algorithm that could have told them that I was going to go out this morning and buy a 2TB Crucial SSD, a collander and hotwings.

All the data in the world isn't enough to predict our movements.

And I damn sure wasn't going to wait for a delivery when Microcenter is less than 5 miles away.

 

[captaincranky]

Desires to as mean to American taxpayers as she is to her staff.

This would be funny, and would possibly even be a complete sentence, if it only had a subject pronoun and verb.

Think about the fist line of Shakespeare's, "Hamlet".

 

[captaincranky]

There is NO algorithm that could have told them that I was going to go out this morning and buy a 2TB Crucial SSD, a collander and hotwings.

That would depend on whether or not you summarily pulled the capacity and brand out of your a**, (sorry, I meant hat), or shopped for it online first.

In the latter case they could predict you would likely buy one soon, but obviously not to the instant.

As to the wings? Come on dude, now you're just being silly.

 

[wiyosaya]

People actually want a system that could purposefully send them an ad for very specific products they want at very specific times.

Excuse me? Speak for yourself, please! I'm not buying anything just because I see an ad for it even if it represents something I want. Marketing, ads, you know, is about appealing to your base emotions in order to get you to buy a product you do not necessarily want. An ad, just like some politicians, will promise you everything, then deliver nothing. I simply will not buy a product just because of an ad. IF I want that product, I will do my own research on it.

You may believe the ad, but I won't. I've been burned too many times by ads to even remotely think that there are any honest ads.

If they had a system that offered me exactly what I was looking for, I'd be fine with it. But they can't read my mind. Or my wallet.

So why try to tell us that

People actually want a system that could purposefully send them an ad for very specific products they want at very specific times.

 

[wiyosaya]

That would depend on whether or not you summarily pulled the capacity and brand out of your a**, (sorry, I meant hat), or shopped for it online first.

In the latter case they could predict you would likely buy one soon, but obviously not to the instant.

Just kill the third-party cookies. Problem solved!

 

[captaincranky]

Just kill the third-party cookies. Problem solved!

I use Opera for my everyday browsing. I usually have Firefox open for mail at the same time, but it's locked down with "NoScript", and it's always a guessing game as to which scripts I need to give permission for a website to work correctly.

Obviously though, I'm being tracked on Opera to some extent. But its ad blocker does work very well, sites keep telling me to turn it off.

It keeps my old mind nimble though, when I get targeted ads, to remember where I visited before, as opposed to where I am now, (in the cyber world), when I got the ad.

Well, I (if I do say so myself), have an extremely high threshold of sales resistance. So, virtually 100% of all the horse poop people are trying to sell me, stays in their warehouse.

One fatal mistake a web surfer can make however, is to linger on a site you have no interest whatsoever in their product. You'll be counting ceramic figurines or similar, jumping over the moon as you try and go to sleep.

Unfortunately, the only sales pitches I can't resist, are my own. This can lead to high credit card balances.

That said, I keep my skills honed by answering the front door when I know full well it's Jehovah's Witnesses. This is like the Jujitsu of sales resistance, since you need to use your opponents own strength against them. I take the pamphlets, thank them, tell them to have a blessed day, shut the door, and then go back to worshiping Satan in my basement.

 

[Morris Minor]

What happened to the McAfee sentinel program? is that still a thing?

 

[Reachable]

That's more of a wave-riding political speech than a practical notion. If you want to solve many of the problems of social media, move its functionality to the public sphere. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube have all become essential means of communication, and none of them have any real competition. Jeremy Corbin put forth an idea that every citizen of the U.K. have a public Facebook-like account if they wish. (If anyone is concerned about the U.S. and other governments having access to your personal data -- they already do.)

Public social media eliminate the problems associated with selling data.

 

[QuantumPhysics]

Excuse me? Speak for yourself, please! I'm not buying anything just because I see an ad for it even if it represents something I want. Marketing, ads, you know, is about appealing to your base emotions in order to get you to buy a product you do not necessarily want. An ad, just like some politicians, will promise you everything, then deliver nothing. I simply will not buy a product just because of an ad. IF I want that product, I will do my own research on it.

You may believe the ad, but I won't. I've been burned too many times by ads to even remotely think that there are any honest ads.

So why try to tell us that

THE FREE MARKET HAS SPOKEN.

If you don't understand how things got the way they are...take a class.

 

[iamcts]

Just kill the third-party cookies. Problem solved!

I use Opera for my everyday browsing. I usually have Firefox open for mail at the same time, but it's locked down with "NoScript", and it's always a guessing game as to which scripts I need to give permission for a website to work correctly.

Obviously though, I'm being tracked on Opera to some extent. But its ad blocker does work very well, sites keep telling me to turn it off.

It keeps my old mind nimble though, when I get targeted ads, to remember where I visited before, as opposed to where I am now, (in the cyber world), when I got the ad.

Well, I (if I do say so myself), have an extremely high threshold of sales resistance. So, virtually 100% of all the horse poop people are trying to sell me, stays in their warehouse.

One fatal mistake a web surfer can make however, is to linger on a site you have no interest whatsoever in their product. You'll be counting ceramic figurines or similar, jumping over the moon as you try and go to sleep.

Unfortunately, the only sales pitches I can't resist, are my own. This can lead to high credit card balances.

That said, I keep my skills honed by answering the front door when I know full well it's Jehovah's Witnesses. This is like the Jujitsu of sales resistance, since you need to use your opponents own strength against them. I take the pamphlets, thank them, tell them to have a blessed day, shut the door, and then go back to worshiping Satan in my basement.

You should use the Brave browser.

It tells you exactly which trackers it's blocking and has a built-in ad blocker. It's pretty slick.

 

[Someone8MyPosts]

Tax tax tax...that's all DC knows how to do!

Klobuchar is radical among democrats.

Taxing companies that make money off user data almost seems like a joke. Most companies shouldn't be able to sell data in the first place, let alone the government wanting a slice of something as questionable as that. It's be like the government taxing the illegal sale of LSD. How is that going to work again?

Agreed. This will only encourage companies to keep taking and selling data, rather than putting a stop to it. As a citizen, you'll never see one cent of that money.

 

[Underdog]

Tax tax tax...that's all DC knows how to do!

Knowing (what) to tax is the clever bit.

 

[Underdog]

And that's the irony, isn't it?

Despite the biggest, richest companies on Earth, with the best programmers and engineers on Earth, mining a metric crapton of data from billions of people every day, their holy algorithms are crap in practice. So not only is privacy an afterthought, the intended use of the data is a total joke.

To which I'm sure they probably think "well, clearly we don't have enough!"

All the data in the world isn't enough to predict our movements.
.

Be patient. They're working on it.