Slashdot Log In
The Privacy Paradox
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri Jul 04, 2008 08:33 AM
from the don't-ask-and-we-won't-care dept.
from the don't-ask-and-we-won't-care dept.
Dekortage writes
"The NYTimes has a piece up about the paradox of privacy: 'Normally sane people have inconsistent and contradictory impulses and opinions when it comes to their safeguarding their own private information.' More specifically, it's all how you ask: if you don't talk about privacy, people won't worry about it. In one survey, 'When the issue of confidentiality was raised, participants clammed up. For example, 25 percent of the students who were given a strong assurance of confidentiality admitted to having copied someone else's homework. Among those given no assurance of confidentiality, more than half admitted to it.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
From that little extract in the summary about students, is that proof of people not caring about privacy unless someone mentions it, or proof that students these days are a bit thick and don't really think ahead or about what they're saying?
(NOTE: I'm actually a student myself and I'm inclined to believe the latter).
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
It's proof that people are more cautious when someone makes an effort to appear harmless. There's a gamut of normal behavior, and telling people that you're not going to stab them in the back with the information you're requesting isn't in that gamut. This study says nothing about privacy.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, I can't think of any students who don't clam up when the thought of potentially getting into trouble is raised. It's like handing a kid an armed bomb and swearing you won't detonate it, if you ask me... would you blame them being nervous?
Verb-Space (Score:5, Interesting)
There was a study or two a little while ago that mentioned that the mind has trouble with negative constructions over time.
"Your data is safe with me. That's right, I am not going to *broadcast your data all over the internet where all the world can see it, reverse engineer your life, and tag it in the southeastern dialect of Klingon attached to a mashup of Steve Ballmer and Jack Thompson. Nosirree, I promise to take good care of you and not *rip your life to shreds and offer your data as bait to the CIA, or Viacom."
The mind melts and forgets it is in "reversal mode", and becomes exhausted from the scare words.
Parent
Re: Verb-Space (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why using the word NOT is counter-productive. When communicating anything you should use the positive form of what ever declaration you are trying to say. Especially with children and young adults. It's also important when thinking to yourself.
Instead of saying "Don't run" you need to say "Stop. Please walk slowly" Since what they hear in the first case may be "Blah't RUN!"
or
instead of "Don't play around with knives"
say: "Playing with knives is dangerous and you will get in trouble"
cause all they'll hear is a suggestion to "Play around with knives"
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why using the word NOT is counter-productive. When communicating anything you should use the positive form of what ever declaration you are trying to say. Especially with children and young adults. It's also important when thinking to yourself.
Instead of saying "Don't run" you need to say "Stop. Please walk slowly" Since what they hear in the first case may be "Blah't RUN!"
or
instead of "Don't play around with knives"
say: "Playing with knives is dangerous and you will get in trouble"
cause all they'll hear is a suggestion to "Play around with knives"
Because let's face it, young children and young adults are the same, right? Or the simple fact that we treat young adults as children and children as infants we produce drones too afraid to learn a language and its useage for positive, negative and neutral connotations.
We program them to think as inferior, flawed creatures. It's really only until one has been shown it's not the language we need to police in order to predict more "suitable" outcomes, it's a greater exposure to human actions, at the earliest
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's also important in user interface design. One of my pet peeves is seeing something like:
[X] Disable the foo button
Why the hell not just invert the sense of the checkbox?
[ ] Enable the foo button
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Emphasis mine.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
(NOTE: I'm actually a student myself and I'm inclined to believe the latter).
I am a teacher and I am certain of the latter...
Parent
Proof that people who copy homework are stupid (Score:3, Funny)
Quite.
The survey simply proves that, people who copy others' homework, find it difficult to follow a chain of logic. I'm fairly sure we all knew that before the survey.
To summarise: "Stupid is as stupid does"
Same as with any chore (Score:5, Interesting)
Talk to people about dieting or brushing teeth and they might do it in immediate future. Privacy is a chore that can cause quite a bit of inconvenience. Damage from it being breeched only happens rarely and takes a lot of time to manifest itself.
Re:Same as with any chore (Score:4, Insightful)
Privacy is not a chore. Privacy is property. Protecting said property is a chore, you need to actively protect it. In a perfect world, people would respect your property (privacy) and leave it alone. In the real world, that doesn't happen of course. People aren't as moral as they always claim to be.
Parent
conscience (Score:2)
this means that if your conscience compels you to mention confidentiality, you're probably up to no good, so i should watch out. of course, this doesn't help against those with no conscience.
Trust me (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no paradox at all. If you ask a girl out on a date she might say yes. Promising that you are not going to cut her up into little pieces and eat her raw over the next 2 weeks does not improve your chances. People are rightly suspicious when they hear someone state explicitly that they are not planning on doing something evil. Economists are always coming out with nonsense like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh how I wish I had some spare mod points for you. Where is the "+2 - Insightful and very Funny" option.
Re:Trust me (Score:4, Funny)
So it was a really dumb idea for a certain company to make their motto "do no evil" ...
It also begs the question* about doctors and "first, do no harm."
*(no, I'm not interested in little grammar hitlers starting a war over "begs the question". Put it in an ask slashdot - or better yet, get a life.)
Parent
Re:Trust me (Score:4, Funny)
*(no, I'm not interested in little grammar hitlers starting a war over "begs the question". Put it in an ask slashdot - or better yet, get a life.)
What about the big grammar hitlers, can they help you out?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Nowadays it doesn't mean anything at all.
Re:Trolling (Score:5, Insightful)
Incorrect. GP is making a good point and staying very much on topic doing so:
He uses the term incorrectly, but since most people would understand what he means, normally they would let it pass without notice. However, since he points out that he is not interested in responders mentioning the incorrectness, responders will instantly point it out. This relates to TFA (I'm not sure he realized it himself).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And how, exactly, does this improve on correctly using "prompt the question"?
I don't understand what "prompt the question" means. The first thing that comes to my mind is:
C:\>The question
Maybe I need to get out more often, sorry.
Begging the question (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't see the advantage because it deprives us of the original meaning, for which there is no good synonym.
Regards,
--
*Art
Re:Trust me (Score:4, Insightful)
Sort of like "Give us your information. After all, you have nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide ..." Saying "you have nothing to worry about" when you're already in a very worrisome situation?
A friend of mine said he always knew when someone was out to f*ck him - they'd say "Trust me." When you think about it, it makes sense. If I already trust you, you won't have to tell me "Trust me." And if I don't saying those words isn't some magic sauce that will suddenly make me trust you.
"Trust me!" == "I probably think you're stupid and I'm going to fuck you over."
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
There's no paradox at all. If you ask a girl out on a date she might say yes. Promising that you are not going to cut her up into little pieces and eat her raw over the next 2 weeks does not improve your chances. People are rightly suspicious when they hear someone state explicitly that they are not planning on doing something evil. Economists are always coming out with nonsense like this.
It's still important research, and I think it's counter-intuitive that the more you talk about safegurading people's data the more nervous they get about revealing it. When we try to recruit people for observational medical studies we send the potential particpants ever increasing details of the safeguards we are going to use to protect their data. At the same time particpation rates are dropping, and a natural response has been to try and make people feel even more secure about our use of their data. M
Re: (Score:2)
Yep; just as whenever somebody says "Trust me!" or "This is the truth!" or "I'm not lying!" you know beyond any reasonable doubt that they are indeed attempting to deceive you.
Re:Trust me (Score:5, Funny)
You seem to have forgotten to which website you're posting.
Parent
I don't understand why you object to surveillance. (Score:5, Funny)
Land of the wiretapped, more like. (Score:2)
I was absolutely appalled to hear about that, and really felt for the terror that the citizens of East Germany had to face under Communism: say the wrong thing on the phone, and the heavy bootheels of the state police might come kicking down your door, to drag you away to a dungeon, work camp or firing squad.
Absolutely appalled, indeed.
Well, we've got th
Paranoia (Score:2)
Re:Paranoia (Score:5, Interesting)
I think we're pre-programmed to trust and assist everyone in our tribe by default, and distrust anyone not of our tribe. The problem is that this doesn't work well anymore, since we don't know everyone in our tribe. It's likely quite useful when you hunt wildebeest, but not as useful when you work for a hospital, protecting patient records.
Most of us don't think of trust at all, but assign perceived trustworthiness automatically, and only by being reminded of trust do we pay it any thought.
Social engineering takes advantage of this. You get the victim to draw the conclusion (without being told -- it has to be subconscious) that you belong to the same work tribe as them, and thus trust becomes implicit.
Some warning signs that you may be subjected to social engineering:
- The person starts using your first name without you having ever met.
- The person refers to an authority figure in a jocular/friendly way, in order to make you draw the conclusion that the authority figure knows and trusts this person.
- They will try to appeal to your vanity. E.g. they may imply that they called YOU because you're so friendly and helpful. Ask yourself whether, if it really was this urgent, they would be calling you instead of those whose job it is to deal with this sort of situation. If you believe for one second that it's because of your demeanor, you're not only stupid but vain too.
- They mention a common foe. "You know how accounting is..." Yeah, everyone knows that accounting are bastards to anyone not in accounting, in every company in every country. That doesn't lend credence to you being on the same side.
- They mention an interest of yours. "I had planned to take my son fishing this weekend, but I guess I'll be working, trying to fix this". Why would they tell that to a stranger? (Especially if you have a sticker saying "BITE MY BASS" on your car.)
- If face to face, the person smiles a lot. Nothing disarms suspicion as easily as a smile.
And yeah, cops learn this, and with time become pretty good at it too.
My main advice is to never trust a person who smiles. Ever. That invariably means they want something. Yes, this includes loved ones too; what they want might be something you're willing to give, but they're still unconsciously trying to lower your defense by smiling. A smile is always a mechanism to disarm the one who sees it.
Parent
Re:Paranoia (Score:4, Funny)
You must be really fun to hang out with.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
*smile*
in this case correlation is causation (Score:5, Insightful)
... so the correlationisnotcausation tag is misleading. I assume they ran an experiment and randomly assigned half the students to the "mention confidentiality" treatment, half to the control. So there's no way (except an extraordinary fluke) for anything but the treatment to explain the big difference in honesty.
Re:in this case correlation is causation (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
silly (Score:2)
We all cherish our privacy. Then we go and divulge everything about ourselves on Facebook, sprinkle our Social Security number like pixie dust across the Web and happily load up on tracking devices like GPS navigators and cellphones.
I do have a Facebook page, I do submit my social security card on-line, and I do use a GPS navigator and cell phone. I have a good idea who gets each of those items of data and why, and I have a good idea of the risks and implications.
I'm sorry the researchers don't understand
Re: (Score:2)
Who gets data resulting from your use of a GPS navigator?
Re: (Score:2)
Who do they resell their data to?
What has access to their system? Is every single tech person they employ trustworthy?
Is their security good enough?
Who is middle man to your TCP transmitions?
Do you trust your ISP?
Do you login outside your PC? Can you trust those computers?
Who else has access to your PC? Who can hack your PC?
Re:silly (Score:4, Insightful)
Who do they resell their data to?
I don't know and it doesn't affect my privacy.
What has access to their system? Is every single tech person they employ trustworthy?
I don't know and it doesn't affect my privacy.
Is their security good enough?
Yes, in the sense that even no security on their end would be "good enough".
Who is middle man to your TCP transmitions?
I assume my ISP and maybe the NSA.
Do you trust your ISP?
No.
Do you login outside your PC? Can you trust those computers?
I don't have to trust them. When I do use another computer, I use an OTP.
Who else has access to your PC? Who can hack your PC?
Doesn't matter; they can't do anything with it.
Basically, you're asking all the wrong questions. If you have to rely on your ISP to be trustworthy or your computer not getting stolen, you have already lost.
Parent
Out of sight, Out of Mind (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people forget that rule most of the time, to their eventual detriment. On July 3rd, a judge ordered Google to hand over log records containing user-identifiable data on every YouTube video ever downloaded. Did you ever think your YouTube habits would become publicly available? Read Rule #1 above. 'Nuf said.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not quite everything. For instance, any YouTube videos that I watched at work (assuming from the moment that I regularly clear cookies) could have been watched by anyone else at the same office; no one has the data to distinguish them, as the office router doesn't keep NAT logs and YouTube sees only the one address. Anything done on a sanitized account used on an open wireless access point is going to be extremely hard to tie to you, particularl
Surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is anyone terribly surprised? How we answer questions depends on how the question is asked. Specifically, we try to read social cues as to how the information will be received. Ask someone a personal question in a context that makes them think their answer will garner praise, and they'll answer much more readily than in a situation where it's implied the answer will lead people to condemn them.
I remember in college a bunch of people were taking purity tests, and one girl took the test and scored on the relatively pure end of the spectrum, and seemed proud of that. When everyone was much more impressed with people who scored incredibly impure, she took the test again and managed to get a much different score.
two fears compounded? (Score:3, Interesting)
If not given the assurance people think only about the bad outcome caused by their confession, when given the assurance they actually compound two fears, the fear of bad outcome and the fear of having the promise broken.
I like someone who knows how a pessimist thinks (Score:2)
If not given the assurance people think only about the bad outcome caused by their confession, when given the assurance they actually compound two fears, the fear of bad outcome and the fear of having the promise broken.
BINGO!
Telephone privacy (Score:3, Interesting)
I never copied homework (Score:4, Funny)
Why bother if you can just copy the test itself?
People are accustomed to bait-and-switch language (Score:5, Insightful)
People are accustomed to seeing legislation such as the "Defense of Marriage Act", which attacks and limits people's right to marry... the "Patriot Act", which exploits patriotism toward ends which no patriot could support... etc. How many Congressional bills DON'T have a name that is 180-degrees opposite from the bill's contents?
People are accustomed to private sector speech meaning its exact opposite as well. You never see a food company describe its product as "gourmet" unless it isn't. "Employee Rights" policies are generally about limiting employee rights. More relevant here, anyone who has even glanced at a "Privacy Policy" from their bank or other business institution knows that it really deals with how little privacy you have, and the hoops they make you jump through even to protect that.
Where's the "paradox" here? We have grown accustomed to any language about our "rights" actually being a bait-and-switch. So, yes... when we hear assurances that our privacy is safeguarded, we assume that you wouldn't even have brought it up unless it wasn't.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're absolutely right about this (I tried to mod you up, but my points had timed out). Watch any advertisement on TV and while the voice over is promising one thing, the 6 point type scrolling at the bottom is "clarifying" and negating the points-- or, in the words of Tom Waits, "the large print giveth, and the small print taketh away." I've noticed even my children no longer trust the words "cheap," and worse, "free," and assume an
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.studentsfororwell.org/ [studentsfororwell.org]
The US has always been the land of the free*.
* Subject to terms and conditions, offer not valid where inapplicable.
Use Simpler Language Next Time (Score:3, Funny)
Most students probably didn't know what "confidentiality" means and played safe...
This result has been in observed other fields (Score:3, Interesting)
This result (of people caring more about something once it's been mentioned) has been observed in economic experiments measuring people's willingness to accept, for example, the construction of a new dangerous waste management facility in their municipality.
When presented with the scenario, "The Federal and Local Governments have agreed that the construction of this facility is necessary, and should be constructed here", about 50% of people voted for the plant. When the scenario was modified to, "The Federal and Local Governments have agreed that the construction of this facility is necessary, and should be constructed here. Each resident will receive 500 Francs per year as compensation.", the rate of acceptance fell to about 20%.
Totally counter-intuitive: same scenario, better conditions, less acceptance. It wasn't a strategic decision about trying exhort more money, but rather, the fact that money was offered prompted the residents to think, "Hang on – if they're willing to compensate me for this, it MUST be dangerous. Bugger this!*"
The same effect looks to be at work in this experiment: presented with the offer of confidentiality, the subjects are prompted to reconsider how sensitive this information actually is, and come to the conclusion that if MUST be sensitive if people feel it necessary to promise not to reveal it to anyone else.
*I'm paraphrasing, obviously. I'm not sure even the French would give answers like that on surveys!