7 ms·

> "The average person doesn't know it exists" Is there any evidence to suggest the average person really cares about privacy online to such an extent?

by axod 16y ago

epi0Bauqu 16y ago
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/12/21/web-surfers-troubled-by-tracking-poll-says/?mod=rss_WSJBlog&mod=blogmod http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/12/21/web-surfers-troubled-...
- axod 16y ago
  Yeah I'd take that with a giant pinch of salt. "90% of respondents said they pay little or no attention to online ads." eg the respondents are in no way a representative sample. It also sounds like an entirely loaded poll - eg "Would you like more ability to opt out of online tracking".... "um... yes? I guess". There's so much FUD around the issue - "should advertising networks be allowed to target products to you based on tracking". The term 'tracking' sounds bad. It sounds like they are monitoring everything you do, when in fact they're just storing a cookie and noticing which other sites you visit that also carry ads from the same network.
  - epi0Bauqu 16y ago
    I don't think that statement renders the poll invalid. That is to say, I think 90% of people in general would say they pay little or no attention to online ads. But more generally, I don't know if there is any poll that would satisfy you. I've been watching you make these comments for years :).
    - axod 16y ago
      heh true, true. I think generally though, a very very vocal minority make a ton of noise about privacy. Look at adblock. If you were a newcomer to the net and just read comments here or at reddit, you'd assume everyone uses it. But the figure is more like 1 or 2% at most have adblock or similar installed. There's this big elitist movement that supposes that only idiots click on adverts, that they only click because they're confused, that adverts are all bad and irritating. But there's no real evidence to back that up. Nearly everyone clicks on adverts. Nearly everyone buys stuff as a result. Consumers find stuff via adverts, Sellers sell stuff via adverts. They work. I appreciate what you're trying to do though, and hope it does pay off for you, the time is right for some google competition. I'd be satisfied I'm wrong if adblock usage jumped to 50%+ or if more than a few thousand people used Tor or whatever the usual figure is (extremely low).
      - TheAmazingIdiot 16y ago
        I hate ads. I despise them. And I work as a small-time consultant along with my studies. When I install/fix a machine, I always load Firefox with adblock plus due to the amount of harassing nasty ads. Being the location where I do the majority of my business, they are almost exclusively on dialup, so even a 100kb image add is literally 25 seconds extra load time. Now, am I anti-capitalist? Not quite. I agree that someone doing work for money (be it a sole proprietor or company) has a right to 'hang their shingle'. I most certainly do. However, when I look at content, I do not want myself distracted from material that has no bearing on what I am looking at. And yes, I full well understand that ad-click and purchase is what increases revenue for content based websites. I also know, from the many articles here, that google is THE player in this sphere, along with their multitude of complaints. I also, control my network connection from my side. I also control my CPU, what resides in ram, what lands on my screen, and what I choose to not display. As I look at it, we have dealt with nearing 15 years of increasingly hostile ads. I'm only reacting in kind by being hostile to them. And I attribute banners and such like the 'last minute' sale grocery stores attempt by putting candy in the checkout lane. Yes, I do know that my viewpoint is a minority. But I also recommend goods and services to others. So, yeah, don't abuse us and we'll pass on the sales.
        LordLandon 16y ago
        I do not want myself distracted from material that has no bearing on what I am looking at. Just to play devil's advocate, but wouldn't targetted ads be more preferable then, since they WOULD have a bearing on what you're looking at?
        sesqu 16y ago
        No, they would have bearing onwho is looking at them.
        TheAmazingIdiot 16y ago
        I'm all for targeted ads, when I am looking for products and/or services to buy. 99% of the time im on the internet, I am NOT going to buy stuff. I'm going to forums that I attend, getting email, working to help that ubuntu works better (by bug reports and fixes), and researching on more stuff that I can do in IT
extension 16y ago
The average person can't decide if they care about it until they understand it. Until they do, I'm glad people like Gabriel are being paranoid on their behalf.
- axod 16y ago
  Reminds me of stallmans endless ranting about freedom and software. The evidence is that the masses don't care. They just want stuff that works and solves problems for them. Is it open source? Why would anyone (apart from a geek) care?
  - Mithrandir 16y ago
    Disagree. People usually aren't aware of these privacy problems, and would care if they did know. Result: this page. Same goes for free software: more casual users (probably) would use more free software if they knew about it. And the bit about it just working is mostly FUD.
  - potatolicious 16y ago
    If the average person knew that their Google searches can potentially lead to credit rejections or trouble with health insurance providers (hypothetical at this point, but with recent trends not as farfetched as before), I think they certainly would care. The reason why the masses don't care is because they don't know why kind of havoc this sort of lack of privacy can cause. I for one am glad someone is educating the layman in an accessible and non-condescending way.
    - axod 16y ago
      Highly hypothetical - to the extreme. How would any insurance co. know if it's me, or someone else in the household? Also afaik health insurance is mainly a US phenomenon thank god.
      - epi0Bauqu 16y ago
        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704648604575620750998072986.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870464860457562... There are lots of ways this could play out. If you go to the site and register (increasingly likely), they might be able to detect you individually. Secondly, providers are starting to line up data by email address and other personal facts, so they may be able to match you like that. But even if they aren't absolutely sure it is you, they can still use the information to put you in different initial pools that could be used, for example, to ask you more specific follow-up questions that then put you in different risk pools.
LanceJones 16y ago
Not until their life is impacted negatively (e.g., turned down for health insurance). Most people (in North America anyway) don't appear to care much about their health, either... that is, until they are diagnosed with cancer or suffer a heart attack.

> "The average person doesn't know it exists" Is there any evidence to suggest the average person really cares about privacy online to such an extent?

by axod 16y ago

> "The average person doesn't know it exists" Is there any evidence to suggest the average person really cares about privacy online to such an extent?

epi0Bauqu 16y ago

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/12/21/web-surfers-troubled-by-tracking-poll-says/?mod=rss_WSJBlog&mod=blogmod http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/12/21/web-surfers-troubled-...

axod 16y ago
Yeah I'd take that with a giant pinch of salt. "90% of respondents said they pay little or no attention to online ads." eg the respondents are in no way a representative sample. It also sounds like an entirely loaded poll - eg "Would you like more ability to opt out of online tracking".... "um... yes? I guess". There's so much FUD around the issue - "should advertising networks be allowed to target products to you based on tracking". The term 'tracking' sounds bad. It sounds like they are monitoring everything you do, when in fact they're just storing a cookie and noticing which other sites you visit that also carry ads from the same network.
- epi0Bauqu 16y ago
  I don't think that statement renders the poll invalid. That is to say, I think 90% of people in general would say they pay little or no attention to online ads. But more generally, I don't know if there is any poll that would satisfy you. I've been watching you make these comments for years :).
  - axod 16y ago
    heh true, true. I think generally though, a very very vocal minority make a ton of noise about privacy. Look at adblock. If you were a newcomer to the net and just read comments here or at reddit, you'd assume everyone uses it. But the figure is more like 1 or 2% at most have adblock or similar installed. There's this big elitist movement that supposes that only idiots click on adverts, that they only click because they're confused, that adverts are all bad and irritating. But there's no real evidence to back that up. Nearly everyone clicks on adverts. Nearly everyone buys stuff as a result. Consumers find stuff via adverts, Sellers sell stuff via adverts. They work. I appreciate what you're trying to do though, and hope it does pay off for you, the time is right for some google competition. I'd be satisfied I'm wrong if adblock usage jumped to 50%+ or if more than a few thousand people used Tor or whatever the usual figure is (extremely low).
    - TheAmazingIdiot 16y ago
      I hate ads. I despise them. And I work as a small-time consultant along with my studies. When I install/fix a machine, I always load Firefox with adblock plus due to the amount of harassing nasty ads. Being the location where I do the majority of my business, they are almost exclusively on dialup, so even a 100kb image add is literally 25 seconds extra load time. Now, am I anti-capitalist? Not quite. I agree that someone doing work for money (be it a sole proprietor or company) has a right to 'hang their shingle'. I most certainly do. However, when I look at content, I do not want myself distracted from material that has no bearing on what I am looking at. And yes, I full well understand that ad-click and purchase is what increases revenue for content based websites. I also know, from the many articles here, that google is THE player in this sphere, along with their multitude of complaints. I also, control my network connection from my side. I also control my CPU, what resides in ram, what lands on my screen, and what I choose to not display. As I look at it, we have dealt with nearing 15 years of increasingly hostile ads. I'm only reacting in kind by being hostile to them. And I attribute banners and such like the 'last minute' sale grocery stores attempt by putting candy in the checkout lane. Yes, I do know that my viewpoint is a minority. But I also recommend goods and services to others. So, yeah, don't abuse us and we'll pass on the sales.
      - LordLandon 16y ago
        I do not want myself distracted from material that has no bearing on what I am looking at. Just to play devil's advocate, but wouldn't targetted ads be more preferable then, since they WOULD have a bearing on what you're looking at?
        sesqu 16y ago
        No, they would have bearing onwho is looking at them.
        TheAmazingIdiot 16y ago
        I'm all for targeted ads, when I am looking for products and/or services to buy. 99% of the time im on the internet, I am NOT going to buy stuff. I'm going to forums that I attend, getting email, working to help that ubuntu works better (by bug reports and fixes), and researching on more stuff that I can do in IT

extension 16y ago

The average person can't decide if they care about it until they understand it. Until they do, I'm glad people like Gabriel are being paranoid on their behalf.

axod 16y ago
Reminds me of stallmans endless ranting about freedom and software. The evidence is that the masses don't care. They just want stuff that works and solves problems for them. Is it open source? Why would anyone (apart from a geek) care?
- Mithrandir 16y ago
  Disagree. People usually aren't aware of these privacy problems, and would care if they did know. Result: this page. Same goes for free software: more casual users (probably) would use more free software if they knew about it. And the bit about it just working is mostly FUD.
- potatolicious 16y ago
  If the average person knew that their Google searches can potentially lead to credit rejections or trouble with health insurance providers (hypothetical at this point, but with recent trends not as farfetched as before), I think they certainly would care. The reason why the masses don't care is because they don't know why kind of havoc this sort of lack of privacy can cause. I for one am glad someone is educating the layman in an accessible and non-condescending way.
  - axod 16y ago
    Highly hypothetical - to the extreme. How would any insurance co. know if it's me, or someone else in the household? Also afaik health insurance is mainly a US phenomenon thank god.
    - epi0Bauqu 16y ago
      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704648604575620750998072986.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870464860457562... There are lots of ways this could play out. If you go to the site and register (increasingly likely), they might be able to detect you individually. Secondly, providers are starting to line up data by email address and other personal facts, so they may be able to match you like that. But even if they aren't absolutely sure it is you, they can still use the information to put you in different initial pools that could be used, for example, to ask you more specific follow-up questions that then put you in different risk pools.

LanceJones 16y ago

Not until their life is impacted negatively (e.g., turned down for health insurance). Most people (in North America anyway) don't appear to care much about their health, either... that is, until they are diagnosed with cancer or suffer a heart attack.