5 ms·

> People care deeply about their privacy. No, they don't. Do you really think if, before she made this purchase, someone explained to her all the things that c

> People care deeply about their privacy. No, they don't. Do you really think if, before she made this purchase, someone explained to her all the things that could theoratically go wrong with this device, she would have chosen not to buy it? She only cares now and acts like she doesn't share quite a bit of the blame because it actually affected her. I think it is highly likely she'll just switch to an Apple or Google equivalent instead of noticing the larger problem with these devices.

BeetleB 8y ago
Completely agree with you. I've seen this over and over and over with people I know. They always want something badly enough that they'll find any excuse to dismiss any downsides to it. "Amazon/Google/Apple/Facebook/X have very smart people who will not allow this to happen." "I have nothing to hide." "People who want to listen to our boring conversations are losers. Let them waste their time doing so." And the list goes on. I'm not making any of this up. And then when it (occasionally) happens to them, there is a whole lot of dramatic outrage and someone else must be blamed. (Although in this case, I agree someone else is to blame - but I've seen this play out when people explicitly agree in the contract to consequences, and are warned quite clearly by a human about the implications of the contract).
- lopmotr 8y ago
  That's not unreasonable. Lots of good things come with risk and when they go wrong we blame someone. Your house burns down and you blame the arsonist, not yourself for having a house made from fuel! Car crashes kill people and we blame the drunk driver not the victim innocently using the road which is known to be one of the most dangerous places to be.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  "I have nothing to hide." Response: "Cool. What's your e-mail password?"
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    Because emails only have info about the recipient; and email isn't used for access to anything of worth, like bank accounts. /s
  - grkvlt 8y ago
    No, response: "Cool, why don't you send all the e-mails you've received this year to the police, then?"
grumdan 8y ago
> No, they don't. Do you really think if, before she made this purchase, someone explained to her all the things that could theoratically go wrong with this device, she would have chosen not buy it? I think this would only indicate that she might care, but thought theoretical worst case scenarios are not sufficient evidence for an actual, non-negligible risk to her privacy. If they had told her that exactly this would definitely happen, I think she would not have bought the device. I think one problem of explaining privacy issues to non-techies is justifying why theoretical problems often pose a real threat without sounding (to them) like a conspiracy theory nutcase.
nighthawk1 8y ago
I’m not sure sometimes if people are oblivious to consequences or they are aware of them and brush them aside until said consequences occur.
lopmotr 8y ago
You're ignoring risk. This is one failure out of millions(?) of customers. It's like someone being seriously injured in a bicycle crash and deciding not to cycle to work anymore. Or having their house burgled and moving out of the neighborhood. People get hurt when rare bad things happen to them and it scares them off.
- grkvlt 8y ago
  It turns out that people react irrationally when rare bad things happen to them; that is, they over-react, generally...
reaperducer 8y ago
> No, they don't. Do you really think if, before she made this purchase, someone explained to her all the things that could theoratically go wrong with this device, she would have chosen not to buy it? Yes. Do you think if everyone knew what was going to happen with the Facebook scandal before it happened they would have signed up for Facebook? That's why it's called a "scandal."
- BeetleB 8y ago
  >Do you think if everyone knew what was going to happen with the Facebook scandal before it happened they would have signed up for Facebook? That's why it's called a "scandal." Yes. I also noticed how they haven't left once the scandal came to light.
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    >I also noticed how they haven't left once the scandal came to light. You and I must read different news sources. From what I've read, Facebook is down over a billion visits in the last quarter.
    - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
      Half of Facebook's users visited one less time in a 3 month period? I think they'll survive. I've visited less in the last month, but because they've changed the algo on my feed and it's not as interesting ... though that could be a network effect, but I'm getting quite different stuff.
ridgeguy 8y ago
This indicates that people may care deeply about their privacy when they've experienced a breach thereof. It is consistent with people not caring about their privacy because they can't imagine such a breach or project how they would feel if it did happen to them. It does not support their not caring about it. The loss of privacy spreading throughout civilization is recent and rapid. It's not surprising that somebody might think about it differently after they've experienced it. We haven't had time to come to terms with what out technology can do.

BeetleB 8y ago

Completely agree with you. I've seen this over and over and over with people I know. They always want something badly enough that they'll find any excuse to dismiss any downsides to it. "Amazon/Google/Apple/Facebook/X have very smart people who will not allow this to happen." "I have nothing to hide." "People who want to listen to our boring conversations are losers. Let them waste their time doing so." And the list goes on. I'm not making any of this up. And then when it (occasionally) happens to them, there is a whole lot of dramatic outrage and someone else must be blamed. (Although in this case, I agree someone else is to blame - but I've seen this play out when people explicitly agree in the contract to consequences, and are warned quite clearly by a human about the implications of the contract).

lopmotr 8y ago
That's not unreasonable. Lots of good things come with risk and when they go wrong we blame someone. Your house burns down and you blame the arsonist, not yourself for having a house made from fuel! Car crashes kill people and we blame the drunk driver not the victim innocently using the road which is known to be one of the most dangerous places to be.
reaperducer 8y ago
"I have nothing to hide." Response: "Cool. What's your e-mail password?"
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  Because emails only have info about the recipient; and email isn't used for access to anything of worth, like bank accounts. /s
- grkvlt 8y ago
  No, response: "Cool, why don't you send all the e-mails you've received this year to the police, then?"

grumdan 8y ago

> No, they don't. Do you really think if, before she made this purchase, someone explained to her all the things that could theoratically go wrong with this device, she would have chosen not buy it? I think this would only indicate that she might care, but thought theoretical worst case scenarios are not sufficient evidence for an actual, non-negligible risk to her privacy. If they had told her that exactly this would definitely happen, I think she would not have bought the device. I think one problem of explaining privacy issues to non-techies is justifying why theoretical problems often pose a real threat without sounding (to them) like a conspiracy theory nutcase.

nighthawk1 8y ago

I’m not sure sometimes if people are oblivious to consequences or they are aware of them and brush them aside until said consequences occur.

lopmotr 8y ago

You're ignoring risk. This is one failure out of millions(?) of customers. It's like someone being seriously injured in a bicycle crash and deciding not to cycle to work anymore. Or having their house burgled and moving out of the neighborhood. People get hurt when rare bad things happen to them and it scares them off.

grkvlt 8y ago
It turns out that people react irrationally when rare bad things happen to them; that is, they over-react, generally...

reaperducer 8y ago

> No, they don't. Do you really think if, before she made this purchase, someone explained to her all the things that could theoratically go wrong with this device, she would have chosen not to buy it? Yes. Do you think if everyone knew what was going to happen with the Facebook scandal before it happened they would have signed up for Facebook? That's why it's called a "scandal."

BeetleB 8y ago
>Do you think if everyone knew what was going to happen with the Facebook scandal before it happened they would have signed up for Facebook? That's why it's called a "scandal." Yes. I also noticed how they haven't left once the scandal came to light.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  >I also noticed how they haven't left once the scandal came to light. You and I must read different news sources. From what I've read, Facebook is down over a billion visits in the last quarter.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    Half of Facebook's users visited one less time in a 3 month period? I think they'll survive. I've visited less in the last month, but because they've changed the algo on my feed and it's not as interesting ... though that could be a network effect, but I'm getting quite different stuff.

ridgeguy 8y ago

This indicates that people may care deeply about their privacy when they've experienced a breach thereof. It is consistent with people not caring about their privacy because they can't imagine such a breach or project how they would feel if it did happen to them. It does not support their not caring about it. The loss of privacy spreading throughout civilization is recent and rapid. It's not surprising that somebody might think about it differently after they've experienced it. We haven't had time to come to terms with what out technology can do.