5 ms·

> "There's a third possibility, which is that people are rationally aware..." I agree that this possibility exists but I also think it's a tiny minority of peo

by amirmc 10y ago

> "There's a third possibility, which is that people are rationally aware..." I agree that this possibility exists but I also think it's a tiny minority of people online. There's enough info out there to demonstrate that people aren't rationally aware of many things (although they may believe they are). In the current example, I'd bet that most folks don't even understand how much info they reveal online and what can be inferred about them. The very reason the house analogy exists is because it's tangible and 'real-world' but it's not really a fair comparison. If people had the option to live in a fortress, that still had windows and easy access for approved people, and didn't look too different, they'd likely take it. Such options either don't exist or are too expensive.

anigbrowl 10y ago
People may not know exactly what data they are giving away or the mechanisms by which is can be harvested and exploited, but they're constantly reminded that hackers/ corporations/ government have magic powers to find out anything they want to know. So my argument is that most people figure it's a lost cause anyway and choose not to invest much effort in learning about computer security, relying instead on the legal/regulatory system to oversee that like any other complex public policy issue.
- amirmc 10y ago
  Yup, I think the same (although, unfortunately, I don't think the legal/regulatory system is equipped to handle it as they're made up of the same people). The earlier comment implied that there was some form of cost/benefit analysis being undertaken, which is is what I was disagreeing with. The current situation reminds me more of learned helplessness [1], in which people are effectively powerless. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    Ah, I'm sorry I didn't articulate it more clearly. I see your point with learned helplessness, but despite being well-informed and experienced on this issue - enough that I was an evangelist for PGP way back when - I've just given up on the pursuit of perfect security.
    - absconder 10y ago
      Far from surprising, this is the natural course - anyone with enough education to use PGP should know that perfect security is impossible. That's why no reasonable privacy activists aim at it as if it was an attainable goal!
__jal 10y ago
This. Also: peer pressure. As a non-Facebook user, I get questioned about why fairly often, and my family makes passive-aggressive noises about missing pictures and whatnot. And here, any time this comes up, someone thinks they're being clever by pointing out other intrusive systems of surveillance (like cell phones) that I surely must be unaware of or inconsistent about. My theory regarding some (certainly not all) people in the latter group are well aware of how much they're giving up and don't like the idea that other people are doing better at maintaining privacy, a bit like the drunk pushing a drink on someone trying to get sober. A lot of other people are simply unaware of the power of the data they're giving up, or believe that since "everybody else does", it can't be that important. Social cues are really important.
- jayajay 10y ago
  Even as a non-Facebook user, if you were to only post on HackerNews all of the time, a lot could be inferred about you. Apparently, the value of sharing exceeds the cost in privacy. There are many types of thoughts of that people would share on the internet, some more revealing than others (e.g. "Today is Friday" vs. "I am 190lbs"). Some people must be very skilled at posting inert content which does not in any way tie to their personal lives, others may not be -- or simply don't care, or believe the sharing value to be very high, etc. In terms of psychology, UI/UX design and engineered content could try to maximize the likelihood of getting a user to post emotionally-charged or revealing content.
  - __jal 10y ago
    Of course. Facebook (or Google, for that matter) isn't magic, just in possession of a really intrusive nose for others' business and the war chest to do something about it. Detectives, private or otherwise, are sometimes very skilled at doing the same thing in conversation (of course, this is not automated and very expensive). This isn't news. What is news is the scope and automation. The surveillance-entertainment complex is unhealthily healthy.

by amirmc 10y ago

anigbrowl 10y ago

People may not know exactly what data they are giving away or the mechanisms by which is can be harvested and exploited, but they're constantly reminded that hackers/ corporations/ government have magic powers to find out anything they want to know. So my argument is that most people figure it's a lost cause anyway and choose not to invest much effort in learning about computer security, relying instead on the legal/regulatory system to oversee that like any other complex public policy issue.

amirmc 10y ago
Yup, I think the same (although, unfortunately, I don't think the legal/regulatory system is equipped to handle it as they're made up of the same people). The earlier comment implied that there was some form of cost/benefit analysis being undertaken, which is is what I was disagreeing with. The current situation reminds me more of learned helplessness [1], in which people are effectively powerless. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Ah, I'm sorry I didn't articulate it more clearly. I see your point with learned helplessness, but despite being well-informed and experienced on this issue - enough that I was an evangelist for PGP way back when - I've just given up on the pursuit of perfect security.
  - absconder 10y ago
    Far from surprising, this is the natural course - anyone with enough education to use PGP should know that perfect security is impossible. That's why no reasonable privacy activists aim at it as if it was an attainable goal!

__jal 10y ago

This. Also: peer pressure. As a non-Facebook user, I get questioned about why fairly often, and my family makes passive-aggressive noises about missing pictures and whatnot. And here, any time this comes up, someone thinks they're being clever by pointing out other intrusive systems of surveillance (like cell phones) that I surely must be unaware of or inconsistent about. My theory regarding some (certainly not all) people in the latter group are well aware of how much they're giving up and don't like the idea that other people are doing better at maintaining privacy, a bit like the drunk pushing a drink on someone trying to get sober. A lot of other people are simply unaware of the power of the data they're giving up, or believe that since "everybody else does", it can't be that important. Social cues are really important.

jayajay 10y ago
Even as a non-Facebook user, if you were to only post on HackerNews all of the time, a lot could be inferred about you. Apparently, the value of sharing exceeds the cost in privacy. There are many types of thoughts of that people would share on the internet, some more revealing than others (e.g. "Today is Friday" vs. "I am 190lbs"). Some people must be very skilled at posting inert content which does not in any way tie to their personal lives, others may not be -- or simply don't care, or believe the sharing value to be very high, etc. In terms of psychology, UI/UX design and engineered content could try to maximize the likelihood of getting a user to post emotionally-charged or revealing content.
- __jal 10y ago
  Of course. Facebook (or Google, for that matter) isn't magic, just in possession of a really intrusive nose for others' business and the war chest to do something about it. Detectives, private or otherwise, are sometimes very skilled at doing the same thing in conversation (of course, this is not automated and very expensive). This isn't news. What is news is the scope and automation. The surveillance-entertainment complex is unhealthily healthy.