The Privacy Paradox 146
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.'"
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.
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: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.
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.
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.
Re:Hmm (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?
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: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...
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.
Re:in this case correlation is causation (Score:4, Insightful)
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"
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.
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).
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."
E-Commerce implications? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Verb-Space (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 age where we can later become more well-informed of all sides to see for what they are, through their actions and how that matches their words that matters. It's as if the "elders" fear little elders and therefore create barriers to entry by proclaiming to protect one's innocence that creates this duality of Trust and Fear.
If Knowledge is Power, then Truth is Wisdom by the foresight of Action to Word and Word's verification through resulting Actions.
Re: Verb-Space (Score:1, Insightful)
Test this yourself at the local fast food drive-through. Say "Without mustard, pickles and onions" and see just how often they hear "with." Instead say "No."
There's an art to ordering where less is definitely more.
Re: Verb-Space (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
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: You going to Hmm me? (Score:2, Insightful)