RSS
Turns Out People Say They're Concerned About Privacy, But They're Not
from the indeed dept
Well, this shouldn't surprise very many people, but following on plenty of earlier studies that have made it clear that most people don't do much to protect their privacy, a new study out of the UK pretty much states the obvious: people say they're concerned about privacy, but they sure don't act that way. The study found 84% of users say they carefully guard their info online -- but when tested, 89% of people actually did give away info in the same exact survey. To be fair, the specific set of questions was first asking people if they carefully guard their income info, followed later by a question asking them what income bracket they fell into. It's reasonable to think that some folks believe that the bracket is not the same as giving away their actual income -- which is what the first question implied. Still, it does show how people do tend to be freer with info than they might expect, so long as the questions are worded properly. Or if someone gives them chocolate.
28 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- If The Internet Is Treated Just Like The Offline World, We'd Never Have Ridiculous Laws Like SOPA/PIPA
- Trustwave Admits It Issued A Certificate To Allow Company To Run Man-In-The-Middle Attacks
- Lamar Smith: Enemy Of The Internet? Defends Internet Snooping Bill
- Whistle-blowing Scientists (Trying To Prevent Dangerous Products From Reaching The Market) Sue FDA For Snooping On Their Personal Email Accounts
- Why Can't Europe Just Forget The Ridiculous Idea Of A 'Right To Be Forgotten'
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
It means the punishments are out of alignment
I don't have to. Why? Because the punishments are proportional to the crime that the likelihood of someone decidng to cause bodily harm to me when I "present myself to the public by walking down the street" are significantly low. This isn't because people are inherently good. People respect my physical person out of fear of what would happen if they decided to not respect my physical person. Whats the punishment for stabbing me and taking my wallet? Quite hefty indeed. Hefty enough that there are very few people willing to do it.
But that doesn't translate to the web very well. For one thing, a law here is useless, as the perpetrator may not be in the same country at all. Hell, he could be in space passing through 20 countries an hour, and soon we will have to learn to deal with that reality as well.
Right now we are in a state of transition. It sucks. People have a hard time conforming to good security, cause it goes against their expectations of what they think they should have to do. People should be afraid to steal their identity. And yet, they are not. It's too easy for ID thieves to get away with it, there's not enough being done (to | about) the thieves to make sure that this low hanging fruit is deemed poisonous.
You see, we made the mistake of building an international network long before we had an international governing authority. It was worth it, don't get me wrong... But until we get the laws to the point where they are consistent and enforceable, this is going to continue to be a problem. Or worse, the problem will escalate until countries decide to segregate the net. Big-Split anyone?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
when i use to use yahoo i use the optout option (weekly since it was cooky based)
it realy is relative (who is collecting the dataand what type of data is being collected)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Bad example (income)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Winner
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bad example (income)
LMAO . . . no kidding those kids have a rude awaking when they actually get jobs and find out how few of them pay that much LOL
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It means the punishments are out of alignment
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Turns Out People Say They're Concerned About X, But They're Not
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/08/13/conditions-in-open-source-artistic-licenses-limit-their -scope-discuss/?mod=googlenews_wsj
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Its the same AS . . .
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The people who are actually concerned about privacy just didn't fill out the survey.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Its the same AS . . .
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It means the punishments are out of alignment
Really? You have extensive research that proves this? Sorry, but I don't buy your argument. The average person has no desire to hurt someone to steal their wallet. That urge comes from one of two places: desperation (most common), and sadism. Now, I guess what you are saying is that most people are either desperate or sadistic enough to hurt you unless a punishment is in place. I guess I don't have widespread proof, but I can point to one solid counter-example to your argument: myself. I have no desire to hurt someone, punishment or not.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It means the punishments are out of alignment
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It means the punishments are out of alignment
What is a reasonable punishment for this level of "sadism" (as you term it)?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It means the punishments are out of alignment
Thanks for the threadjacking. This country needs an enema. But in the meantime, please stay on topic.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It means the punishments are out of alignment
Thanks for the forum trolling. You need a prozak. Mary was on topic.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It means the punishments are out of alignment
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Turns Out People Say They're Concerned About X, But They're Not
Um. I wrote about it Wednesday night.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080813/1655461968.shtml
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
So all they really found out was that people are willing to give up a false password for chocolate. That's hardly a security risk.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Enforcing vs. Respecting
People are used to living in social environments where privacy is respected. They take only very obvious measures to enforce it in the hopes that those measures are enough to inspire respect. Subtract out that respect and they appear not to be adequately protecting their private information.
When people share private information, they trust that the information will be kept in confidence and used appropriately. That is, their giving of the information should not be interpreted as their lack of concern about the privacy of that information.
I certainly hope that the survey is not interpreted as a reason to relax respect for privacy. Indeed, if anything, it shows a need to help people protect themselves.
Internet (and other) companies are pushing the boundaries of what is people expect in terms of respect for privacy. People share private information without realizing it... the information they give is used in ways they never expect.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Article has limited scope
This is very true. And not just individuals, it is also applicable to companies, CEOs, politicians, etc.
You hear or read the bullshit, but when it comes to actually doing something about someone else's privacy it is either too expensive or difficult to do anything.
It is quite obvious to the casual observer that companies, politicians, etc do not give a rats ass about your privacy. In fact they are going out of their way to attack it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
How do they know the data is real?
Just because these surveys claim people aren't really concerned about privacy because they give out "personal information", it doesn't mean the information they gave is actually personal. It just means they gave out information. There is no way to verify the information is accurate.
And if someone did give out something personal, such as a password for chocolate, they can still just change it. Or maybe they have a setup where you need a smart card to use their account. Just because they give out so-called "personal" information doesn't mean they're stupid.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It means the punishments are out of alignment
So when 68% of businesses fail to pay taxes...
My accountant told me about this story over the weekend and I don't think we've seen a more misleading, hyperbolic story in ages!
The way she explained it is that S-Corp businesses don't have to file federal taxes: the revenue flows from the business to the owners, so the owners pay taxes from their income and not on the business.
I may have misquoted her, so we should probably get another accountant to verify the information, but the story is still wildly misleading.
Though it wouldn't be as entertaining as a headline that read "68% of all businesses don't have to pay taxes. Blame Calvin Coolidge for passing HR 1234 in 1926."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Liberation can response to Transformation Development
Nowaday, They are facing with the bad sytem which were abusing their rights and benefit. The community just follow what the authority decided. They live with no sound. They need to pay for all service of authority, like birth certification which the responsibility of government.They have to work hard with low benefit.So I would you send me any solution that suitable with this issue.I do hope you in condidency
Thank you!
My Best Regards!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment