Originally Posted by
Saracen
It might surprise you that I don't find that weird, at all. In fact, I entirely agree with drawing the distinction.
For me, maintaining my privacy isn't really about putting a monetary value on it. I don't see it in money terms. Which is precisely why I'm not seduced by reward cards. It's corporations that are seeking to put a monetary value on access to personal data, because, for them, it has a direct monetary value. I'm sure some business analyst somewhere could put a value per year of access to an average individual's personal data, in terms of return on investment from targeted ad's, or increased shop revenue from customer loyalty and inertia. I'd bet they could break it down by occupation, income group, and most likely, postcode, too.
But for me, it's not about money, but about peace and quiet, being left alone by interfering corporations in my own home. By not having to deal with junk mail through my door, in my email in-tray or worst of all, by SMS.
I simply don't want to be pestered, by companies, in this way. Period. It doesn't matter who it is, what deal they're pimping, or what they try to make out I get out of it, I simply want to be left the bleep alone. No unsolicited marketing, in any form, by any company, with any offer, ever again. That's my ideal situation. Money isn't the issue.
On the other hand, helping "good causes" .... well, it's also not about selling data, but offering it IF the cause is good. And moreover, unlike companies, the objective of at least some of those "good causes" is not about making money, or at least, not only about that. So I MIGHT be convinced to allow access to my medical records BUT .... I'd insist on me bring the one making that decision, if I was convinced of the cause, and even then, I'd insist on certain safeguards or I wouldn't agree. One of those safeguards would be that those records were provided ONLY to the organisation I agreed to, and ONLY for the specified purpose, and would not under any circumstances be passed on to anyone else, for any other reason.
Suppose, Nox, you agree to allow access to medical data. Suppose that includes samples of material from which a full DNA sequence can be run. It only takes a couple of days, now, you know. Suppose that DNA sequence shows a genetic disposition to a serioys illness, or a heart condition, etc. On the one hand, it might help develop a treatment, or get you treated. On the other hand, if the wrong people can access your data, it might mean you can't get life insurance, or a future employer takes one look at your data and declines to offer you a job, because you're an unnecessary risk.
Hence, absolutely no way will I EVER agree go a blanket uploading of my medical data, and allowing an NHS bureaucracy to determine who gets access go it, and for what projects and uses. A bit like personal data, but the genie's out, once you've lost control, you've lost control. The medical stuff certainly isn't about money. And I wouldn't sell that at any price that wasn't enough to allow me to buy a Branson-style private island, and live a life of a luxury-bound hermit, invited family and friends only.