6 ms·

1/3 of active google users is a lot of people to opt into giving away their privacy. Either they actually don't understand what they did, understand but were fo

1/3 of active google users is a lot of people to opt into giving away their privacy. Either they actually don't understand what they did, understand but were forced in some way or understand and truly believe the value of the service was worth the privacy invasion. It is pure speculation on my part but my guess is that the first two reasons dwarf the third. The decision in question though would, in my view, only have merit if the third answer was overwhelmingly the case.

gruez 2y ago
Have you considered the possibility that the average person doesn't care that much about privacy? That's entirely consistent with other things you can observe, like the lack of response to the Snowden leaks, or how commonly excuses like "nothing to hide" are invoked.
- nonrandomstring 2y ago
  > Have you considered the possibility that the average person doesn't care that much about privacy? I have. I considered it in depth and did a good deal of psychological research on it. Then I went out onto the street and asked people; dozens and dozens of ordinary people, old, young, rich, poor... Result: People really care about privacy. You can read all about it in the podcast and blog I am not allowed to mention here. What you're alluding to I think is the idea that people do not fully understand the link between technology and privacy violation. Our view here is also biased. The idea that "people don't care that much about privacy" naturally gets bandied around amongst developers for whom profitable software designs do violate people's privacy.
  - zelphirkalt 2y ago
    Why are you not allowed to post the podcast here? HN rules or rules for the podcast? Or something else?
  - jppittma 2y ago
    When you say “profitable software designs” my bet is that if you have any person off the street a “tour” of google and how their data is actually treated, more than 1/3 of them would be okay with sharing that information, and wouldn’t believe it to be a violation of their privacy. What happened to Google on privacy could easily happen to any company- people complained about the total amount of data Google had, the gut response of the devs was “oh, you can trust us, we’re not using it for anything nefarious, just features/debugging” And then Apple took that and used it as a marketing opportunity. And now, once you get to a certain size, you start having to develop without metrics/logs, or go through a bunch of red tape to get them.
- chii 2y ago
  > Have you considered the possibility that the average person doesn't care that much about privacy? it's not that they don't care - they didnt think they need to care. There's a big difference. Implicit trust in the data usage is the key here. On the one hand, this implicit trust means the customer is a really good one. But abuses of this trust is inevitable imho, and eventually, it will be made public if it happened. Only then, will those average person actually reveal their real preference - that they do care!
  - zelphirkalt 2y ago
    And to me this actually also makes it very qurlestionable, whether actual consent existed, or someone simple abused their uninformedness.
- jmward01 2y ago
  I believe choice three covers this possibility so, yes, I explicitly considered it and gave my view that I think the other two choices, in my opinion, likely dwarf the third. Further, I think the Snowden leaks and google privacy abuses are likely linked. It isn't that people don't care, it is that they don't believe their choice matters or that there will be protections if they take the other choice. If your privacy is going to be abused weather you use the feature or not, why not use the feature? It is the only rational 'choice'. Things like the Snowden leaks show that there is, unfortunately, likely a lot of truth to this view.
rossjudson 2y ago
Do you carry a smartphone?
- callalex 2y ago
  HN is not a forum for “gotcha!” posts like this. If you mean to say something like “by carrying a cell phone you are already enabling AT&T or T-Mobile to legally sell your fully identifiable and detailed location history to anyone with cash” just say that. Not everybody knows exactly what you know, and sharing knowledge is the solution to that.
- fsflover 2y ago
  Yes, it's a Librem 5 with GNU/Linux and hardware kill switches which cut all networks when I need 100% privacy.
- jmward01 2y ago
  I believe choice two covers your implications. Not having a smartphone greatly impacts daily life and would make earning a living more of a challenge too. My argument is not that people shouldn't use these apps/devices, it is that because they are integral to daily life it shouldn't be allowed to abuse the user's privacy. In essence, people are given a false 'choice' which is just insult to injury and gives legal cover for abusing someone's privacy.

gruez 2y ago

Have you considered the possibility that the average person doesn't care that much about privacy? That's entirely consistent with other things you can observe, like the lack of response to the Snowden leaks, or how commonly excuses like "nothing to hide" are invoked.

nonrandomstring 2y ago
> Have you considered the possibility that the average person doesn't care that much about privacy? I have. I considered it in depth and did a good deal of psychological research on it. Then I went out onto the street and asked people; dozens and dozens of ordinary people, old, young, rich, poor... Result: People really care about privacy. You can read all about it in the podcast and blog I am not allowed to mention here. What you're alluding to I think is the idea that people do not fully understand the link between technology and privacy violation. Our view here is also biased. The idea that "people don't care that much about privacy" naturally gets bandied around amongst developers for whom profitable software designs do violate people's privacy.
- zelphirkalt 2y ago
  Why are you not allowed to post the podcast here? HN rules or rules for the podcast? Or something else?
- jppittma 2y ago
  When you say “profitable software designs” my bet is that if you have any person off the street a “tour” of google and how their data is actually treated, more than 1/3 of them would be okay with sharing that information, and wouldn’t believe it to be a violation of their privacy. What happened to Google on privacy could easily happen to any company- people complained about the total amount of data Google had, the gut response of the devs was “oh, you can trust us, we’re not using it for anything nefarious, just features/debugging” And then Apple took that and used it as a marketing opportunity. And now, once you get to a certain size, you start having to develop without metrics/logs, or go through a bunch of red tape to get them.
chii 2y ago
> Have you considered the possibility that the average person doesn't care that much about privacy? it's not that they don't care - they didnt think they need to care. There's a big difference. Implicit trust in the data usage is the key here. On the one hand, this implicit trust means the customer is a really good one. But abuses of this trust is inevitable imho, and eventually, it will be made public if it happened. Only then, will those average person actually reveal their real preference - that they do care!
- zelphirkalt 2y ago
  And to me this actually also makes it very qurlestionable, whether actual consent existed, or someone simple abused their uninformedness.
jmward01 2y ago
I believe choice three covers this possibility so, yes, I explicitly considered it and gave my view that I think the other two choices, in my opinion, likely dwarf the third. Further, I think the Snowden leaks and google privacy abuses are likely linked. It isn't that people don't care, it is that they don't believe their choice matters or that there will be protections if they take the other choice. If your privacy is going to be abused weather you use the feature or not, why not use the feature? It is the only rational 'choice'. Things like the Snowden leaks show that there is, unfortunately, likely a lot of truth to this view.

rossjudson 2y ago

Do you carry a smartphone?

callalex 2y ago
HN is not a forum for “gotcha!” posts like this. If you mean to say something like “by carrying a cell phone you are already enabling AT&T or T-Mobile to legally sell your fully identifiable and detailed location history to anyone with cash” just say that. Not everybody knows exactly what you know, and sharing knowledge is the solution to that.
fsflover 2y ago
Yes, it's a Librem 5 with GNU/Linux and hardware kill switches which cut all networks when I need 100% privacy.
jmward01 2y ago
I believe choice two covers your implications. Not having a smartphone greatly impacts daily life and would make earning a living more of a challenge too. My argument is not that people shouldn't use these apps/devices, it is that because they are integral to daily life it shouldn't be allowed to abuse the user's privacy. In essence, people are given a false 'choice' which is just insult to injury and gives legal cover for abusing someone's privacy.