4 ms·
That example causes panic because there’s an immediate major financial threat (yes, those charges can be reversed, but it’s still scary) A better comparison wo
by granshaw 8y ago
That example causes panic because there’s an immediate major financial threat (yes, those charges can be reversed, but it’s still scary)
A better comparison would be something like “that hotel you spent a week in has a hidden shower camera and an employee has been found secretly spying on guests”
- icxa 8y agoI think your better comparison has reinforced my point that maybe I didn't convey clearly: If that secret spying doesn't cause any material harm to the individual, they are less likely to respond. Maybe some minor outrage of course, and some expressed displeasure for it to discontinue. Besides, going off of your hotel example, I imagine that if you explained to a Facebook group of parents that hey those videos you are all sharing of your little ones are being exposed to peeping Toms, you'd have a nice little outpouring of outrage. Part of this is also the complete and utter failure of good journalism on tech issues. This is HN, we are all technologists here right? How many times have you read a NYT, WaPo, or some of the newer "media" like HuffPo reporting on some tech only to facepalm at the number of woeful inaccuracies and misrepresentation of the facts or situation, yet we are to trust them to report on complex privacy and security issues effectively? It's Gell-Mann amnesia over and over again.