4 ms·

I won't use a Microsoft Windows computer as my daily driver due to dark patterns, privacy issues, new business model etc, but I also wouldn't advocate for stric

by jalami 10y ago

I won't use a Microsoft Windows computer as my daily driver due to dark patterns, privacy issues, new business model etc, but I also wouldn't advocate for strict legislation in this area. The only legislation I think I would back is mandatory information disclosure on install. EULAs are important and it is to detriment of the consumer that we agree to terms we aren't aware of. Still, if there's an opt out toggle buried somewhere, then the company is aware someone wants to do so. How we decide what information is important to consumers is debatable, but consumers can't make informed decisions if they don't have the information available or are not presented a choice. If information isn't provided by primary sources, many of whom would rather not provide it in an easily digestible manner, then it's a guessing game. Things like applying whack-a-mole patches to fix the shortcomings post-install is essentially plugging a sponge boat blindfolded. Even grouped settings toggles in a customer-fronting GUI can be broken out and flipped on individually without your explicit approval tomorrow so your Windows Firewall IP hack is just that, a well-meaning, but messy and temporary hack. I'm a firm supporter of "vote with your dollar", however I think voting with your voice is also important. If you're unhappy with something a company is doing, shoot an email or call someone if possible and explain why you're not using their product. Hell, even and maybe especially if you are a customer, let them know you're not happy about a policy. Just like in the public sphere, private companies don't know whether you're an ideological abstainer or simply someone they haven't advertised hard enough to yet. Part of this problem is due to companies knowing full well they're acting against the consumers, but consumers often shut up and move along silently after getting their wallets out. I've emailed Microsoft multiple times about their policies on binding arbitration, their dark patterns and privacy policies. I may not be a customer, but they sure as hell know why.

x1798DE 10y ago
I agree with this, and I'll add that in addition to "voting with my dollars", I'm also "voting with my respect", in that if you tell me you worked for Microsoft during the Windows 10 update saga, particularly if you actually worked on something related to this travesty, you go down a notch in respect in my book. I'm also going to see it as a black mark on resumes I see. In the end, I think the most leverage we in our high-tech enclave have is in setting the social norms that say this is not OK. Losing the respect of your peers can be a surprisingly powerful motivator, and it will translate directly into increased labor costs for Microsoft and their ilk (consider how much more you'd have to be offered before you took a job with the NSA right now, or with a spamming company).
blub 10y ago
The complete failure of IT privacy in the US proves that voting with your dollar and voice doesn't work. The very existance of companies like Google, Facebook and thousands of others whose main purpose if data analytics proves that. While your opinion sounds balanced at first sight (let's allow customers to choose...), it is in fact completely misguided. Such arguments have been used by many harmful industries such as tobacco and food producers pushing HFCS and other damaging foods or additives. They know they can let the customer choose, because without regulation they can out-advertise, out-market and outwit all but the most savvy consumers. And even they can't escape due to network effects and lobbying. No. Privacy should be regulated to the point that companies think 10 times before gathering one additional piece of information and then decide against it because they know they will be fined 50% of their profits when they fuck up.
- jalami 10y ago
  >The complete failure of IT privacy in the US proves that voting with your dollar and voice doesn't work. The very existance of companies like Google, Facebook and thousands of others whose main purpose if data analytics proves that. I don't think voting with your dollar is a failure, I just think it's currently too niche a hobby to move mountains. From my completely unscientific empiricism, it seems only super hot button issues, regarding religion for example, cause enough Americans to weigh a company's economic policies vs their ideological ones in large enough numbers while also making enough noise about it. Many consumers seem to make one dimensional decisions when choosing a product or service: How much does it cost? This is exacerbated by the amount the public sphere is taking over private decision making, not ameliorated. For example, citizens concerned with wage disparity aren't buying goods whose executives pay their workers fairly; they're shopping at Walmart. For some reason, economic or ideological issues that stem from the market aren't the market's problem, but become a problem for Washington. Do I think putting the mean and median wage of non-executive employees on the package would help here? Not until we decide these are problems of the market, but honest information disclosure will be important then. On top of that, a great many consumers are happy with the status quo. "Personal information" is some nebulous magical currency that they can get free stuff for. Just because you or I value this doesn't mean most people do. I've talked with a great many, otherwise intelligent, people that would have it no other way. They can use Facebook for free and to them the value gained far and wide exceeds the costs. You and I personally think this calculation is short sighted and incorrect, but if you assume the consumer is too stupid to make decisions for themselves regarding their own information then where does that lead us as a society? (not to mention the regulatory overhead)

by jalami 10y ago

x1798DE 10y ago

I agree with this, and I'll add that in addition to "voting with my dollars", I'm also "voting with my respect", in that if you tell me you worked for Microsoft during the Windows 10 update saga, particularly if you actually worked on something related to this travesty, you go down a notch in respect in my book. I'm also going to see it as a black mark on resumes I see. In the end, I think the most leverage we in our high-tech enclave have is in setting the social norms that say this is not OK. Losing the respect of your peers can be a surprisingly powerful motivator, and it will translate directly into increased labor costs for Microsoft and their ilk (consider how much more you'd have to be offered before you took a job with the NSA right now, or with a spamming company).

blub 10y ago

The complete failure of IT privacy in the US proves that voting with your dollar and voice doesn't work. The very existance of companies like Google, Facebook and thousands of others whose main purpose if data analytics proves that. While your opinion sounds balanced at first sight (let's allow customers to choose...), it is in fact completely misguided. Such arguments have been used by many harmful industries such as tobacco and food producers pushing HFCS and other damaging foods or additives. They know they can let the customer choose, because without regulation they can out-advertise, out-market and outwit all but the most savvy consumers. And even they can't escape due to network effects and lobbying. No. Privacy should be regulated to the point that companies think 10 times before gathering one additional piece of information and then decide against it because they know they will be fined 50% of their profits when they fuck up.

jalami 10y ago
>The complete failure of IT privacy in the US proves that voting with your dollar and voice doesn't work. The very existance of companies like Google, Facebook and thousands of others whose main purpose if data analytics proves that. I don't think voting with your dollar is a failure, I just think it's currently too niche a hobby to move mountains. From my completely unscientific empiricism, it seems only super hot button issues, regarding religion for example, cause enough Americans to weigh a company's economic policies vs their ideological ones in large enough numbers while also making enough noise about it. Many consumers seem to make one dimensional decisions when choosing a product or service: How much does it cost? This is exacerbated by the amount the public sphere is taking over private decision making, not ameliorated. For example, citizens concerned with wage disparity aren't buying goods whose executives pay their workers fairly; they're shopping at Walmart. For some reason, economic or ideological issues that stem from the market aren't the market's problem, but become a problem for Washington. Do I think putting the mean and median wage of non-executive employees on the package would help here? Not until we decide these are problems of the market, but honest information disclosure will be important then. On top of that, a great many consumers are happy with the status quo. "Personal information" is some nebulous magical currency that they can get free stuff for. Just because you or I value this doesn't mean most people do. I've talked with a great many, otherwise intelligent, people that would have it no other way. They can use Facebook for free and to them the value gained far and wide exceeds the costs. You and I personally think this calculation is short sighted and incorrect, but if you assume the consumer is too stupid to make decisions for themselves regarding their own information then where does that lead us as a society? (not to mention the regulatory overhead)