7 ms·

People do care. They have very limited ability to make meaningful changes. But you can look at the national do not call registry in the US, and it's popularit

People do care. They have very limited ability to make meaningful changes. But you can look at the national do not call registry in the US, and it's popularity to see that when there are options, people are happy to use them.

standyro 9y ago
I respectfully disagree with you. Most people (in the US) do not care. I used to work for an adtech company which engaged with all sorts of third party vendors (like Axciom, BlueKai, etc) and every time I would explain my job to most friends or strangers, people often rightly assumed that shady data dealing is what was going on behind ads and services like Facebook and seemed not to care. There has been little appetite to change this until recently, and frankly only because of Donald Trump. No one seemed to mind the Equifax hack, and no one wants to change their lifestyle or stop using services they enjoy just to support privacy. Until a company like Google or Facebook gets completely hacked and some truly incredibly embarrassing personal information gets made public on a mass scale, I think that sentiment in the US will continue.
- username223 9y ago
  > people often rightly assumed that shady data dealing is what was going on behind ads and services like Facebook and seemed not to care. So people don't realize the full extent of the evil in which you were complicit? Sleep well.
  - mattsfrey 9y ago
    If you work in the software industry there is a huge probability adtech dollars somewhere upstream are contributing to your income.
- hiram112 9y ago
  Most people in the US may not care, but that's because they simply do not understand how it will (or already is) affect them. The average person thinks that, at worst, they'll just see ads that are more intelligent or targeted. Who cares, right? The do NOT realize that these troves of data are going to be used to someday deny them health insurance, get them fired or not hired for some job, get screwed in job pay and benefit negotiations (due to companys like Experian selling you pay history to employers), be charged more than other consumers for the same product (due to being able to pay more), getting denied for loans or charged higher interest rates, not accepted to a school, refused entry in establishments because you're not a 'good' customer, etc. And that is just what big business will do. Wait 'till big governments around the world see just how much power the Chinese are able to exert over their populace playing the same data games.
  - fricat1ve 9y ago
    Perhaps Americans are just confident that if these things start happening there will be ample opportunity to implement legislative fixes. I mean c'mon...."Refused entry into establishments"? Unless the Civil Rights Act of 1964 somehow gets repealed I don't see this as very likely.
    - pavlov 9y ago
      Legislative fixes would need to be implemented by the Congress — an institution trusted by only about 25% of Americans [1]. So I don't think it's fair to say that there is widespread confidence that this can be fixed with legislation. [1] https://www.npr.org/2018/01/17/578422668/heres-just-how-little-confidence-americans-have-in-political-institutions https://www.npr.org/2018/01/17/578422668/heres-just-how-litt...
    - usrusr 9y ago
      The main reason why this is illusionary is that you can't see it when data is used against you. With a sample size of one it would be perfectly indistinguishable from bad luck or just bad individual performance.
  - kodablah 9y ago
    > they simply do not understand [...] The average person thinks that [...] The do NOT realize This reeks of elitism. I'm not sure it's clear what the average person thinks and one could hope that the average person is smarter than this and wouldn't guess what the average person thinks. To not only guess what we, the average, think but to also so confidently predict the future to me demonstrates below average reasoning.
  - MichaelMoser123 9y ago
    I never understood the following: an online profile is built out of many scraps of data, each data point on its own is not very conclusive (like search history, I am searching for many things, how can they conclude anything from an instant curiosity I had in the past?) Could it be that that customers of this data may see the result as not very conclusive after all? Can we collectively help them to reach such a conclusion by ignoring online advertising? Wouldn't it be great if all this data aggregation/privacy invasion business reaches a point of diminishing returns just because the subject of the manipulation has developed an immunity to all of it? We need an online behavior randomization gadget that turns our valued personal data trail into garbage, obfuscation to the rescue. On the other hand the only thing that counts is the credit card purchase history of a person - and it is impossible to randomize that one (short of sharing the card with your kids)
BoiledCabbage 9y ago
Do not call list is about avoiding annoying calls, not privacy
- cocacola1 9y ago
  Annoying calls invade privacy.
  - Zak 9y ago
    Not in the same sense. Most people don't care nearly as much that a telemarketer knows their name and that they have an above average chance of being interested in refinancing their house as they do about the fact that the call interrupted dinner.
  - IncRnd 9y ago
    You misunderstand. Annoying calls and privacy are related in the same way as a white list and a black list or as "all men are human but not all humans are men.
paulie_a 9y ago
In my experience the DNC has been a failure. I get 10+ calls a day. All are obvious scams. The most recent iterations are student loan related (I don't have any) and an urgent warning about my car warranty expiring (I don't have one)
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > In my experience the DNC has been a failure. I get 10+ calls a day. All are obvious scams. It's kind of expected that calls that are criminal before considering whether there are restrictions on unsolicited commercial calls would not be significantly inhibited by the DNC rule, only legal (but for the rule) telemarketing.
  - paulie_a 9y ago
    I am mostly shocked that the low quality of calls even exist. Who are the people actually falling for a noisy VoIP call asking for personal information? I've been trolling those calls lately when I have a few minutes just so they can't call someone else.
nl 9y ago
The success of the do-not-call registry (and the fact it is raised in this discussion at all) shows precisely how little people care about privacy. The do-not-call registry stops people being bothered by unsolicited calls. It does nothing at all to protect privacy. People care about the annoying calls, go on the do-not-call registry and they stop so as far as they are concerned the problem is fixed. But the companies keep collecting the data. There is zero change in privacy,
chiefalchemist 9y ago
People who are aware (of the danger) generally do care. But most aren't aware, or were charmed into a slumber by the lack of response by the previous administration. That is, it can't be a big deal, BHO didn't say it was, so it can't be. Remind any Democrat about Snowden and they're likely to give you a blank stare. It's as if it never happened.

standyro 9y ago

I respectfully disagree with you. Most people (in the US) do not care. I used to work for an adtech company which engaged with all sorts of third party vendors (like Axciom, BlueKai, etc) and every time I would explain my job to most friends or strangers, people often rightly assumed that shady data dealing is what was going on behind ads and services like Facebook and seemed not to care. There has been little appetite to change this until recently, and frankly only because of Donald Trump. No one seemed to mind the Equifax hack, and no one wants to change their lifestyle or stop using services they enjoy just to support privacy. Until a company like Google or Facebook gets completely hacked and some truly incredibly embarrassing personal information gets made public on a mass scale, I think that sentiment in the US will continue.

username223 9y ago
> people often rightly assumed that shady data dealing is what was going on behind ads and services like Facebook and seemed not to care. So people don't realize the full extent of the evil in which you were complicit? Sleep well.
- mattsfrey 9y ago
  If you work in the software industry there is a huge probability adtech dollars somewhere upstream are contributing to your income.
hiram112 9y ago
Most people in the US may not care, but that's because they simply do not understand how it will (or already is) affect them. The average person thinks that, at worst, they'll just see ads that are more intelligent or targeted. Who cares, right? The do NOT realize that these troves of data are going to be used to someday deny them health insurance, get them fired or not hired for some job, get screwed in job pay and benefit negotiations (due to companys like Experian selling you pay history to employers), be charged more than other consumers for the same product (due to being able to pay more), getting denied for loans or charged higher interest rates, not accepted to a school, refused entry in establishments because you're not a 'good' customer, etc. And that is just what big business will do. Wait 'till big governments around the world see just how much power the Chinese are able to exert over their populace playing the same data games.
- fricat1ve 9y ago
  Perhaps Americans are just confident that if these things start happening there will be ample opportunity to implement legislative fixes. I mean c'mon...."Refused entry into establishments"? Unless the Civil Rights Act of 1964 somehow gets repealed I don't see this as very likely.
  - pavlov 9y ago
    Legislative fixes would need to be implemented by the Congress — an institution trusted by only about 25% of Americans [1]. So I don't think it's fair to say that there is widespread confidence that this can be fixed with legislation. [1] https://www.npr.org/2018/01/17/578422668/heres-just-how-little-confidence-americans-have-in-political-institutions https://www.npr.org/2018/01/17/578422668/heres-just-how-litt...
  - usrusr 9y ago
    The main reason why this is illusionary is that you can't see it when data is used against you. With a sample size of one it would be perfectly indistinguishable from bad luck or just bad individual performance.
- kodablah 9y ago
  > they simply do not understand [...] The average person thinks that [...] The do NOT realize This reeks of elitism. I'm not sure it's clear what the average person thinks and one could hope that the average person is smarter than this and wouldn't guess what the average person thinks. To not only guess what we, the average, think but to also so confidently predict the future to me demonstrates below average reasoning.
- MichaelMoser123 9y ago
  I never understood the following: an online profile is built out of many scraps of data, each data point on its own is not very conclusive (like search history, I am searching for many things, how can they conclude anything from an instant curiosity I had in the past?) Could it be that that customers of this data may see the result as not very conclusive after all? Can we collectively help them to reach such a conclusion by ignoring online advertising? Wouldn't it be great if all this data aggregation/privacy invasion business reaches a point of diminishing returns just because the subject of the manipulation has developed an immunity to all of it? We need an online behavior randomization gadget that turns our valued personal data trail into garbage, obfuscation to the rescue. On the other hand the only thing that counts is the credit card purchase history of a person - and it is impossible to randomize that one (short of sharing the card with your kids)

BoiledCabbage 9y ago

Do not call list is about avoiding annoying calls, not privacy

cocacola1 9y ago
Annoying calls invade privacy.
- Zak 9y ago
  Not in the same sense. Most people don't care nearly as much that a telemarketer knows their name and that they have an above average chance of being interested in refinancing their house as they do about the fact that the call interrupted dinner.
- IncRnd 9y ago
  You misunderstand. Annoying calls and privacy are related in the same way as a white list and a black list or as "all men are human but not all humans are men.

paulie_a 9y ago

In my experience the DNC has been a failure. I get 10+ calls a day. All are obvious scams. The most recent iterations are student loan related (I don't have any) and an urgent warning about my car warranty expiring (I don't have one)

dragonwriter 9y ago
> In my experience the DNC has been a failure. I get 10+ calls a day. All are obvious scams. It's kind of expected that calls that are criminal before considering whether there are restrictions on unsolicited commercial calls would not be significantly inhibited by the DNC rule, only legal (but for the rule) telemarketing.
- paulie_a 9y ago
  I am mostly shocked that the low quality of calls even exist. Who are the people actually falling for a noisy VoIP call asking for personal information? I've been trolling those calls lately when I have a few minutes just so they can't call someone else.

nl 9y ago

The success of the do-not-call registry (and the fact it is raised in this discussion at all) shows precisely how little people care about privacy. The do-not-call registry stops people being bothered by unsolicited calls. It does nothing at all to protect privacy. People care about the annoying calls, go on the do-not-call registry and they stop so as far as they are concerned the problem is fixed. But the companies keep collecting the data. There is zero change in privacy,

chiefalchemist 9y ago

People who are aware (of the danger) generally do care. But most aren't aware, or were charmed into a slumber by the lack of response by the previous administration. That is, it can't be a big deal, BHO didn't say it was, so it can't be. Remind any Democrat about Snowden and they're likely to give you a blank stare. It's as if it never happened.