5 ms·

> "There are two kinds of users in this scenario. Those who don't care (99%) and those who do." ... "The author is rightly sore that his bits got pushed to Appl

by amirmc 12y ago

> "There are two kinds of users in this scenario. Those who don't care (99%) and those who do." ... "The author is rightly sore that his bits got pushed to Apple due to his oversight" (emphasis mine) This attitude is completely unhelpful. It throws those who are otherwise ignorant under the bus simply because they don't (can't?) understand how modern tech works. Is that really fair? Must we really divide the world up this way? Most of the public hasn't caught up to how modern systems work and what the trade-offs really are, and they certainly won't if this is the approach we choose to take. It's almost reminiscent of Morlocks and Eloi from HG Well's Time Machine.

nobbyclark 12y ago
Sadly this type of response seems to be common amongst those that do get it. "Whatever. Most people don't care anyway." If you look at the reaction of those 99% to Apple planting a U2 album on their phone, you see an angry response when people are made aware...
- api 12y ago
  If only users actually changed their buying behavior on the basis of security or privacy. Until that happens "users don't care about security or privacy" will continue to be the default since economically speaking it is absolutely true. What users care about as revealed by buying behavior is: user experience, user experience, user experience, user experience, cost, user experience, and user experience.
  - nobbyclark 12y ago
    Has there been a model of consumer behavior related to personal computing where security played a major part? Yes - anti-virus software on Windows. That's not an entirely healthy example but it does show it is possible to make consumers take topics like security and privacy seriously. The issue right now is there aren't enough voices telling them how serious these topics are.
    - api 12y ago
      The celebrity nude hack is a good case in point. "The cloud means some knucklehead from 4chan might steal all your data because they don't like your blog posts" has a certain ring to it. It also might be helpful to drop "privacy." It's security. These are vulnerabilities. Apple could have encrypted this stuff with keys the customer controls, but that takes more engineering to make it friendly and usable. They won't until people care.
quesera 12y ago
Well, it's like this. When I know that I value a product or service for different reasons than the majority of other customers, I recognize that the product might change in a way that eliminates or reverses the value I derive. When I think about the privacy of my personal information, I know that I would be greatly irritated to learn that a single shred of "my stuff" went anywhere outside of my control. I care. I care a lot. The cloud is not made for me. Social technology is not made for me. The extent that social and cloud creeps into my operating system of choice is a clearly tense relationship that I have to think about and plan defensively around. I don't think everyone should have to do that -- but they don't. They want universal sync and autotweeting, and I am not one to begrudge them. When I say "most people don't care", I mean that they have decided that the benefits are greater than the risks, and on the whole would rather trust Apple than Google or some syncerrific.io sort of operation. Maybe they care that their friends, neighbors, and coworkers can't read MyFavoriteHentai.docx, but they do not care much about strangers. So they get the product that they want. And I (and some of the rest of us, but really quite few) do not. And this is the way it should be. So I'm not throwing anyone under the bus. I wish there was a way to make the product that people want without making it harder for me (and the OP) to get what I want out of it, but it's impossible to serve all cases. That becomes my problem, and I bear it willingly.
- amirmc 12y ago
  > "... they have decided that the benefits are greater than the risks ..." My point is that they're not even aware of how things work and therefore are not at all in a position to comprehend what the risks really are, let alone make sensible decisions. The flaw in your reasoning is linking behaviour to knowledge. Just because people are behaving in a certain way doesn't mean that they are fully aware of the consequences of those actions. When it's only a small part of your life, it has little impact but when you suddenly realise a large chunk of your life depends on those choices it can be a bit of a shock (consider all the celebrities who had private images leaked recently).
  - quesera 12y ago
    The low-information customer you're describing is a totally different animal than the person we're discussing here. I agree with you as far as it goes, but OP is a security-conscious developer. Jennifer Lawrence has a different problem. Apple can't really help her either.

by amirmc 12y ago

nobbyclark 12y ago

Sadly this type of response seems to be common amongst those that do get it. "Whatever. Most people don't care anyway." If you look at the reaction of those 99% to Apple planting a U2 album on their phone, you see an angry response when people are made aware...

api 12y ago
If only users actually changed their buying behavior on the basis of security or privacy. Until that happens "users don't care about security or privacy" will continue to be the default since economically speaking it is absolutely true. What users care about as revealed by buying behavior is: user experience, user experience, user experience, user experience, cost, user experience, and user experience.
- nobbyclark 12y ago
  Has there been a model of consumer behavior related to personal computing where security played a major part? Yes - anti-virus software on Windows. That's not an entirely healthy example but it does show it is possible to make consumers take topics like security and privacy seriously. The issue right now is there aren't enough voices telling them how serious these topics are.
  - api 12y ago
    The celebrity nude hack is a good case in point. "The cloud means some knucklehead from 4chan might steal all your data because they don't like your blog posts" has a certain ring to it. It also might be helpful to drop "privacy." It's security. These are vulnerabilities. Apple could have encrypted this stuff with keys the customer controls, but that takes more engineering to make it friendly and usable. They won't until people care.

quesera 12y ago

Well, it's like this. When I know that I value a product or service for different reasons than the majority of other customers, I recognize that the product might change in a way that eliminates or reverses the value I derive. When I think about the privacy of my personal information, I know that I would be greatly irritated to learn that a single shred of "my stuff" went anywhere outside of my control. I care. I care a lot. The cloud is not made for me. Social technology is not made for me. The extent that social and cloud creeps into my operating system of choice is a clearly tense relationship that I have to think about and plan defensively around. I don't think everyone should have to do that -- but they don't. They want universal sync and autotweeting, and I am not one to begrudge them. When I say "most people don't care", I mean that they have decided that the benefits are greater than the risks, and on the whole would rather trust Apple than Google or some syncerrific.io sort of operation. Maybe they care that their friends, neighbors, and coworkers can't read MyFavoriteHentai.docx, but they do not care much about strangers. So they get the product that they want. And I (and some of the rest of us, but really quite few) do not. And this is the way it should be. So I'm not throwing anyone under the bus. I wish there was a way to make the product that people want without making it harder for me (and the OP) to get what I want out of it, but it's impossible to serve all cases. That becomes my problem, and I bear it willingly.

amirmc 12y ago
> "... they have decided that the benefits are greater than the risks ..." My point is that they're not even aware of how things work and therefore are not at all in a position to comprehend what the risks really are, let alone make sensible decisions. The flaw in your reasoning is linking behaviour to knowledge. Just because people are behaving in a certain way doesn't mean that they are fully aware of the consequences of those actions. When it's only a small part of your life, it has little impact but when you suddenly realise a large chunk of your life depends on those choices it can be a bit of a shock (consider all the celebrities who had private images leaked recently).
- quesera 12y ago
  The low-information customer you're describing is a totally different animal than the person we're discussing here. I agree with you as far as it goes, but OP is a security-conscious developer. Jennifer Lawrence has a different problem. Apple can't really help her either.