> Then why, regarding security issues, do so many in our field say 'consumers don't want that'? You answered your own question. Consumers actually do say they

> Then why, regarding security issues, do so many in our field say 'consumers don't want that'? You answered your own question. Consumers actually do say they want privacy and security all the time. It's (some) folks in our industry who think they really don't. Or think that "privacy" or "security" in the abstract are pretty meaningless terms. I fall in that latter category. Consumers say they want "privacy," but what they really want is something that addresses a particular threat model at minimum cost. Take Snapchat for instance. For its target demographic of teenagers, the primary threats are parents. Snapchat won't protect you from a technologically savvy opponent, but for most of its users, that's fine. Snapchat COULD build in two-factor auth, end-to-end encryption, and a whole slew of other privacy measures, but if it makes the app slower and harder to use, it's probably not a good value proposition given what Snapchat knows about its users. Now, what I think what you're implying is that Snapchat should do more, regardless of what its users care about. Although Snapchat's users might not care about the security of their pictures outside of their parents, there are larger "political, historical, and social issues" surrounding the fact that a single entity has access to so many of those pictures in the first place. That well be so. You could argue that Snapchat should take greater care of those photos in order to be a good citizen of the world. But that's a different argument than "there's a growing market for privacy".