BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The sort of information being kept and sold is legitimate for firms to utilize in this fashion

Personal information given to companies is dispersed into the public sphere in a limited fashion. Once placed into the hands of a firm it ceases to be any sort of absolutely protected private right (if it ever was), and is instead now within the sphere of the company with which the individual has opted to interact. It is the natural evolution of how people’s information informs the economic sphere.[1] With regard to selling that information on, it is clearly information the individual is willing to disclose in the realm of commerce so it should make little difference what commercial entity is in possession of the data, especially considering that the information is then only utilized to make their experience online more efficient and valuable. It is also important to consider the exact kinds of information conventionally revealed through the personal data mining efforts of firms. They rarely even access the true identity of the user, but rather make use of second-hand information gathered from search histories, cookies, etc. to generate a consumer profile the firm hopes reflects the preference map of the user. The individual's identity is not revealed in these most frequent cases and the information is usable through the impermeable intermediary of security settings, etc. Thus firms get information about users without ever being able to ascertain the actual identity of those individuals, protecting their individual privacy, if such is a concern.[2] For this reason it cannot be said that there is any true violation of privacy. All of these data-gathering efforts of companies reflect the continuation of firms’ age-old effort to better understand their clients in order to best cater to their desires. [1] Acquisti, A. “The Economics of Personal Data and the Economics of Privacy”. OECD. 2010, http://www.oecd.org/sti/interneteconomy/46968784.pdf [2] Story, L. “AOL Brings Out the Penguins to Explain Ad Targeting”. New York Times. 3 September 2008, http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/aol-brings-out-the-penguins-to-explain-ad-targeting-ok-saul-and-louise-post-with-article/
The storing and sale of personal data aids companies by making marketing more efficient and allows niche markets to thrive

Businesses have been able to use consumers’ personal information to produce far better, more efficient, and more targeted advertising. Traditionally advertisement has been used to reach mass markets and has thus been used mostly as a blunt instrument, targeting the largest and wealthiest demographics in order to get the most efficient use of scarce advertising budgets. The focus on large markets has often left smaller, more niche, markets by the wayside.[1] Yet with the advent of the internet, targeted marketing, and data collection services, firms have been able to create whole new markets that cater to less homogenous needs and wants. The result has been a Renaissance of specialty manufacturers and service providers that could never arise if it were not for the collection of personal consumer data. By targeting their advertising, firms have been able to scale back on the broader advertising, making the whole endeavour less costly and more efficient. On the broader level, companies are able to utilize the vast amounts of individual data compiled to allow them to determine broader changes in society’s consumer desires, to establish aggregate trends.[2] E-commerce accounts for more than $300 billion in the US. This information gathering makes all businesses more responsive to consumer demands and to cause them to change their offered services and products far more swiftly, to the benefit of all consumers. Businesses have thus been able to flourish that might once have languished without access to a means of accessing their market or been unable to change with changing tastes. Because of the proliferation of personal information aggregation we can enjoy a far more efficient business world, with lots of producers that can compete with the larger mainstream on a more even footing, and a mainstream that is more able to meet the ever-changing demand structure of consumers. [1] Columbus Metropolitan Library. “Using Demographics to Target Your Market”. 2012. http://www.columbuslibrary.org/research/tutorials/using-demographic
Collecting and selling personal information is a major violation of privacy

Much of the “personal” data that is kept, collated, and sold is freely available online already and can be protected in many ways. The programmes that are used to collect information online, where most of this collation takes place, often do not ever gain real access to individuals’ identities, but rather only have access to search details. It is highly unlikely that any of this information could be used to identify actual individuals, and where it can it is safeguarded by laws regarding privacy. Furthermore, the information in question is put into the public sphere by individuals availing of services and may well not be guaranteed any form of special protection. They exist and are revealed in the public sphere, and belong there.
Consumers tend to feel alienated by spreading of their personal information for profit

It is simply not true that people are bothered by their personal information getting out, or at least they are unwilling to do anything about it. In a recent survey 85% of respondents said they were aware that they were being profiled by advertisers as they browse the Internet.[1] They know that this data is what companies use to enable sophisticated advertising directed at them and to determine what the market wants. While some people feel it a bit disconcerting that their computer seems to know what might interest them, as in the case with targeted advertising based on personal search data, many others have found that the targeted advertising has made the seeking out of desired goods and services far easier. Also, a policy of disclosure such as that mandated in the EU might be employed in which services inform users that their data will be collated and give them the option to leave the site before this occurs so as to ensure that individuals really are aware. [1] Ives, D., “Anonymizer, Inc. Survey Finds Most Consumers Confused About Online Safety Measures”, Anonymizer, 19 October 2010, https://www.anonymizer.com/company/pressroom/archive/20101019-anonymizer-survey-finds-consumers-confused-about-online-safety/
Data breaches can result in huge amounts of personal data falling into unscrupulous hands

Companies have been making great strides in the realm of data protection and will no doubt continue to do so as it is in their interest to keep any information they have to themselves. They have far more resources and much more sophisticated equipment than the hackers, and while there are resourceful individuals out there, the power of the corporate structure allows them to fend off attacks with greater and greater effectiveness. As these security technologies become more advanced people should feel more and more comfortable with companies holding their data.
The sale of personal data makes for better advertising that benefits consumers

It is difficult to see how this advertising is better for business overall. The consumer still has the same amount of money so will overall still spend the same amount. They may spend it on different things as a result of more targeted advertising, assuming that the consumer is not alienated by the personalised advertising, but is that a benefit? Moreover even if companies are successful in advertising their wares more effectively to their customers, it does not change the fundamental violation of privacy upon which such advertising relies. The norm of selling personal data is hugely dangerous to engender in society, as it produces more and more a sense of entitlement to others’ personal lives.
The sort of information being kept and sold is legitimate for firms to utilize in this fashion

Firms’ data collection serves as a very real threat to individuals’ privacy and identity on the internet. Anonymity is certainly not wholly guaranteed through these tactics, and the information is not entirely safe. When individuals use the internet they often do not pay close attention to what is happening with their personal data. When they do not even know what information they are giving out they cannot meaningfully keep track of their privacy. Many hackers have made use of companies’ data collection efforts to gain access to peoples’ personal information, thus revealing information that individuals clearly never consented to. There must be some boundaries in the physical and digital world that marketers should not cross. Keeping and selling potentially sensitive information of clients certainly falls in this category.
The storing and sale of personal data aids companies by making marketing more efficient and allows niche markets to thrive

It is not particularly reassuring that it is large organisations and in particular big business that keeps these immense datasets. They have their own agendas for how they use this information and if this is simply for pushing products then many people would want no part of it. Analysis are wary about how big businesses will use big data as there is the concern that it will be manipulated, misread or even just plain wrong.[1] While the information may benefit small businesses it is not these companies that have control of the data; they are reliant on it being shared with them by the already dominant much bigger firms who are likely to choose to do business with other big businesses. [1] PewInternet, “The Future of Big Data”, Pew Research Center, 20 July 2012, http://pewinternet.org/Press-Releases/2012/The-Future-of-Big-Data.aspx
Collecting and selling personal information is a major violation of privacy

The gathering of personal data that companies undertake is done in a fashion that is fundamentally invasive of individuals’ privacy. When individuals go online they act as private parties, often enjoying anonymity in their personal activities. Companies, particular online services, collate information and seek to use it to market products and services that are specifically tailored to those individuals. In the context of the internet, this means that individuals’ activities online are in fact susceptible to someone else’s interference and oversight, stealing from them the privacy and security the internet has striven to provide since its inception. At the most basic level, the invasion of privacy that collating and using private data gleaned from customers is unacceptable.[1] There is a very real risk of the information being misused, as the data can be held, and even resold to third parties that the customers never consented to giving their data and might well not want to come into possession of their personal details. This can lead to serious abuses of individuals’ private information by corporations, or indeed other agents that might have less savoury uses for the information, most obviously the more places your personal information is the more likely it is to be lost in a data breach with 267million records exposed in 2012.[2] Even when the information is not exposed it may be used in ways that have a real impact on the individual such as determining credit scores.[3] People as a matter of principle should have control over who gets access to their private information. Giving companies that are driven by profit motive to sell on their customers’ data to anyone that might offer a suitable price stands as an absolute theft of personal information and privacy. [1] The Canadian Press. “Academics Want Watchdog to Probe Online Profiling”. CTV News. 28 July 2008. http://www.ctvnews.ca/academics-want-watchdog-to-probe-online-profiling-1.311784 [2] Risk Based Security, “2012 Sets New Record for Reported Data Breaches”, PR Newswire, 14 February 2013, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/2012-sets-new-record-for-reported-data-breaches-191272781.html [3] Morris, J., and Lacandera, E., “Why big companies buy, sell your data”, CNN, 23 August 2012, http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/23/tech/web/big-data-acxiom
Unrealistically costly

Education is not free; indeed, it can be very costly. English Universities have been putting up fees, with the average expected to be £9,110 per year in 2017-18.[1] They are doing this because there is not the money from the public purse to pay for higher education. FE Colleges are being squeezed their budget dropped 11% from £5.7bln in 2010 to £5.1bn in 2014 with further cuts planned.[2] So the question is how would a big increase in student numbers be paid for? According to the OECD England already has the highest fees in the developed world (surprisingly above the USA where the average is only around £5,300)[3] so the greater cost cannot easily be forced onto the students themselves.    [1] Bolton, Paul, Tuition Fee Statistics, House of Commons Library, Briefing Paper number 917, 2 December 2016, p.10. http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00917/SN00917.pdf [2] ‘Fixing the funding crisis’, BTC Financial Consulting, January 2016, http://www.btgfc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/1533-Further-Ed-Update_EMAIL.pdf [3] Walker, Peter, ‘England has highest university fees in industrialised world, survey finds’, The Guardian, 24 November 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/nov/24/uk-has-highest-undergraduate-tuition-fees-in-industrialised-world-survey-finds
The economy can’t absorb a greatly upskilled workforce.

We need to face the fact that some jobs do not require a great deal of skills. A worker does not need to get a degree – or any level 6 qualification – to be a cleaner, or to flip burgers. Unfortunately, Britain has actually been shifting towards a low skilled economy with almost a 5% increase in employment share for low skilled jobs from 1996-2008.[1] What this means is raising the age of compulsory education and the demanded skill level can be detrimental to the UK economy. Employers will not be able to fill unskilled roles. At the same time there will be large numbers of skilled workers who can’t find a job that matches the skill level that they have been taught to.     [1] O’Connor, Sarah, ‘UK Economy shows shift to low skilled jobs, research finds’, Financial Times, 19th January 2015, https://www.ft.com/content/6a8544ae-9d9e-11e4-8ea3-00144feabdc0
Would need to provide a wide variety of options

The wider the variety of options the more difficult it is for the government to implement. There would need to be hundreds of thousands of new education places. In 2015 only 31% of 18 year olds in England went to University, this amounted to 235,000.[1] To treble this would require a huge increase in education provision, clearly not something that can be managed in the short term. [1] Are there record numbers of young people going to university?, Full Fact, 1 Aug 2016, https://fullfact.org/education/are-there-record-numbers-young-people-going-university/
The economy of the future requires more education

If there is one thing we know about the future, it is that it is difficult to anticipate. Futurologists fifty years ago had ideas about personal jetpacks or flying cars, but for the most part completely missed the biggest change to come; computerisation. Even the WEF in its report suggests an estimate that 65% of primary school students today will end up working in jobs that don’t currently exist. As a result, it is likely that regardless of what is taught they will not be the skills most in demand in 30-40 years.
Young people should have the choice to decide for themselves

It is precisely because it is such a big choice that it should not be left entirely to the young people to decide. Whether to continue education has a significant impact on a young person’s later life in terms of outlook, culture, and simple earning potential. When a young person reaches 18 all they can think of is not studying more. Many are not in a position to take an unbiased, rational look at their options to decide the best way forward for themselves. If they need to go on to learn more, but are left with a choice of what and how, then the danger of the choice – dropping out and not fulfilling their potential – is blunted while still allowing considerable freedom.
Compulsory studying would be taking young people out of the workforce

The increasing flexibility of working highlighted also shows exactly how making education compulsory will make little difference to the workforce. Most students do not study from 9 to 5 as if it were work. They are flexible, and can fit a flexible part time or zero hours work schedule around their studying. Flexibility of study also means that the decline of the Saturday job has little impact; students can do their study, revision, and essay writing at the weekends leaving evenings or other times during the week free if that is what suits employers.
Would need to provide a wide variety of options

While we may be equal we are not equal in terms of interests in study. Education to 21 can’t just mean ‘everyone should go to university’. Already around 6% of first year university students drop out,[1] making university an only compulsory option would not benefit these young people let alone many of those who currently don’t consider university. There therefore needs to be a wide variety of options to continue studying. This has several advantages; it ensures that the increase in young people in education can be absorbed quickly; FE Colleges would take some, companies doing apprenticeships would take others, rather than all the burden falling on Universities. This fits with the government’s plan to have three million apprenticeships by 2020.[2] In the 1960s British industry took 250,000 apprentices per year[3] which shows there is the potential for industry through such schemes to fill much of the need for education places created by this policy. Mandatory education requires some form of enforcement.[4] Unlike at school age 18-21 year olds are responsible for themselves so it is them who are responsible for enrolling at a degree level course. However should they never have enrolled they would not be eligible for any benefits. [1] Havergal, Chris, ‘Rise in UK University rate ‘disappointing’’, Times Higher Education, 23 March 2016 https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/rise-uk-university-dropout-rate-disappointing [2] Note this is not per year, and not just for 18-21 year olds but would include those younger; 16-18. [3] ‘Three Million Apprenticeships’, Learning and Work Institute, March 2017, https://www.learningandwork.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Apprenticeship-Policy-Solution-March-2017-3.pdf, p.6. [4] This is one of the more open areas; do you set enforcement at all? It might be mandatory simply to enrol but there be no penalty for not turning up. There could be a fine (but this would be unfair on the poorest). How about linking it to the right to vote?
The economy of the future requires more education

Technology leads to changes in employment structure. Over the last fifty years Britain has seen deindustrialisation with a decline in manufacturing blue collar jobs from being 40% of the workforce in the 1950s to 8% today. Even over short periods the decline has been rapid; employment shrunk from 4.5million to 2.5million in 15 years from 1997-2012.[1] The fourth industrial revolution could have similarly dramatic changes in employment and the skills needed. There are several big changes to employment happening over the next few decades; machine learning (maybe even artificial intelligence), biotechnology, 3D Printing, and the increasing integration of technology into all aspects of life (the internet of things). Many less skilled jobs, particularly those in routine admin that can be taken by computers will go. But these changes will mean there is greater demand for more skilled jobs; in IT, the sciences, data analysis, but will also require more softer skills such as persuasion and emotional intelligence.[2] In order to increase both these skillsets more education is required. More technical training and apprenticeships is needed in the areas which require technical expertise. Universities will need to train more scientists. It is also through university education that soft skills are mostly learnt; creative and critical thinking, and other soft skills are taught by a wide variety of degree level courses. Making level six education compulsory is the best way to ensure that the largest proportion of the population gains these skills that are needed for the future.   [1] Comfort, Nicholas, The Slow Death of British Industry, 24 January 2013, http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/culture/2013/01/meeting-our-makers-britain%E2%80%99s-long-industrial-decline [2] ‘The Future of Jobs’, World Economic Forum, January 2016, p.10, http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_FOJ_Executive_Summary_Jobs.pdf
Young people should have the choice to decide for themselves

Everyone should have the right to choose their own path through life. Young people beyond the age of 18 are not children to have their life dictated and decided by others. They know their own interests and should be granted the ability to make their own choices. Each individual is enabled by the ability to make choices, it is part of the process of growing up to gain more autonomy and freedom of choice and the freedom to decide the path to their future is the biggest choice we give young people. They need to decide based on their own circumstances, likes and dislikes rather than the dead hand of the state imposing cookie cutter options. The young people not wanting to be taking more education can have real consequences. In Spain when the leaving age was raised to 16 there was considerable absenteeism, not just of the students, but of staff as well – up by 10-15%. This is because the classes are much less willing to learn than previously when they all chose to take the lessons.[1] This same problem is likely to occur for the 18-21 year old age group who under this proposal have to stay in education rather than having the choice to do as they wish with their lives.   [1] Tickle, Louise, ‘Raising the school leaving age will make teachers ill’, theguardian.co.uk, 12 September 2011, https://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/sep/12/research-notes-raising-school-leaving-age
Not everyone is good at studying

While other options apart from degrees are being offered any qualification at level 6 is going to involve some amount of study. Study however does not suit everyone, most young people have been studying since they were 5; 13 years already. It can be no surprise that they want to move on to the next stage in life. Many of these young people have failed to gain 5 A*-C GCSEs and will often have failed one of the most important ones of English or Maths. In 2009-10 17.4% failed to get 5 grades C or above at GCSE.[1] Going on to level 6 is surely not an option for them, or at least it is a very difficult one. Will they spend more time resitting exams trying to reach a set level? Retakes have been condemned as unproductive by the former head of the OCR exam board Mark Dawe.[2] The best option is to let them stop studying and get working.   [1] ‘Educational attainment at age 16’, http://www.poverty.org.uk/26/index.shtml [2] Adams, Richard, and Weale, Sally, ‘A*-C grades in dramatic decline as GCSE results are published’, The Guardian, 25 August 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/aug/25/gcse-results-dramatic-decline-grades