Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×
Privacy Encryption Government Security The Internet United States

Americans Show 'Surprising Willingness' To Accept Internet Surveillance (dailydot.com) 223

Researchers from BYU recently took a survey of internet users (PDF), mostly from the U.S., to determine how they balanced opinions of security and privacy. They found, perhaps surprisingly, that over 90% of users are fine with somebody snooping their encrypted traffic, so long as they were informed of the snooping. Most of them also supported legislation requiring notification and/or consent. "Most respondents also agreed that employers should be able to monitor the encrypted Internet connections of employees even without notification or consent, especially when an employee used a company computer. There was less agreement when it came to employees using personal devices; approximately a third of respondents opposed surveillance in that case."

That said, "Despite accepting surveillance in a number of situations, 60 percent of respondents said that they would react negatively if they discovered that a network they currently use employed TLS proxies." The study also found 4.5% of participants were "jaded" toward the state of privacy and security on the internet, feeling that their traffic is already monitored, and that the government would circumvent whatever technologies we put in place to protect it. The researchers say this group "once cared about these issues but has lost all hope and has largely given up on ever achieving a secure world."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Americans Show 'Surprising Willingness' To Accept Internet Surveillance

Comments Filter:
  • Unsurprising, really (Score:5, Informative)

    by willworkforbeer ( 924558 ) on Monday October 19, 2015 @10:23AM (#50757921)
    Americans Show 'Surprising Willingness' To Accept Internet Surveillance

    Offer them a free webcam and $1.99/minute and they'll drop ... all pretense.
    • by orasio ( 188021 )

      It's not really something you can decide easily.
      Internet surveillance is the current state of affairs. You can accept it, fight it, or despair. Out of those, I think most people just choose the first.

      • by The Real Dr John ( 716876 ) on Monday October 19, 2015 @11:31AM (#50758581) Homepage

        Modern pop culture is all about celebrity. Now everyone is a celebrity because people are watching them. So this is a good thing by today's warped standards. How many of the children who want to be monitored everywhere they go and everything they do ever read 1984 or any other literature that warns of excessive state power and control? When you can just watch YouTube and do FaceBook all day, there isn't much time left to read dusty old books.

        • by Yalius ( 1024919 )
          All culture, everywhere, everywhen, has been about celebrity. It has never been otherwise. The Greeks fawned over philosophers who in turn accepted paid philosophizing gigs. Roman gladiators had endorsements and groupies. BCE China had emperors, courtiers, bureaucrats, entire classes of people who were fawned over and obeyed without question. There has never been and never will be a time when the average person on the street has any personal independence in his or her life.

          This feigned or mistaken indign
          • Exactly how is it that there was never any privacy? Are you saying there is no additional loss of privacy now with the internet and the way corporations and the government are data mining? Are you also saying that the level of celebrity worship did not increase with modern venues like movies, radio, pop music and television? I understand that Kings and Queens were worshiped by some and hated by others, but I really don't think that there is any historical counterpart to current cult figures on TV, music and

            • by KGIII ( 973947 )

              I can, and have, defended the idea that we've more tools for privacy and anonymity today then we've ever had in our past. We can have that debate if you want but I'd urge you to rethink your statement before hand and take history into account. Consider, if you will, that we once slept a family to a room or, in some cases, whole groups of people in one single room - often in a village, where everyone knew you and outsiders weren't welcome because life wasn't a Dungeons and Dragons game. If you were trying to

              • I really have nothing to argue here other than the ways in which the government and their buddies in big business can now intrude into our lives is unprecedented. My comment about people wanting to be celebrities and therefore don't care who is watching was meant to be a joke, but a joke with a point. I think that younger people have grown up with decreasing expectations of privacy, and enhanced expectations that someday they too will be a pop star, or a famous basketball player. I think that these are rela

                • by KGIII ( 973947 )

                  Absolutely. The breadth has scaled, significantly. It's also easier for the storage of data on a wider scale. Add to that the general person wants to be a celebrity and we've a recipe for a loss of privacy. I think the difference is, today, we can opt not to behave in the norm and actually have more privacy (not just on the internet) than ever before. Which is what it appeared you were decrying. Which is why I was kind of confused - you're normally pretty smart and I read your posts. It might have made a fu

                  • Absolutely. But I think there is a huge difference between many of the people at /. and the average person using modern technology. People here make their own computers, write code, set all their security and privacy settings just so, some use Tor (I don't bother because most of my internet activity is doing science research or reading the news) etc. My car is 20 years old and unless someone has stuck a magnetic bat-tracker to it, I am a non-entity on the road electronically. I don't use a smartphone becaus

  • first godwin (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 19, 2015 @10:23AM (#50757925)

    Hitler also got to power because most people were "fine with it."

    • Re:first godwin (Score:4, Insightful)

      by poofmeisterp ( 650750 ) on Monday October 19, 2015 @11:23AM (#50758503) Journal

      Hitler also got to power because most people were "fine with it."

      ..and they were fine with it because they were falling into a bad economic depression, and were in the "anything that can possibly save us from this poor life is fine" mood. See: topic. If there were no other option; literally NO other option fed to peoples' minds to "find them thare turr'ists" other than having full access to ALL Internet traffic, let's say, I wager most (never 100%) all would bend and approve.

      Addendum I: No, even having full access to ALL information won't help the gub'mint find them; they're hiding by LYING and STRIKING.
      Addendum II: There are other ways of communicating other than the Internet. It's just easier and faster.

      • Re:first godwin (Score:4, Insightful)

        by jandersen ( 462034 ) on Monday October 19, 2015 @12:05PM (#50758889)

        That may well be true, but I think this discussion misses the point somewhat. A lot of people genuinely don't care all that much. When you are young, you imagine that 'the authorities' are out to get you, because you don't realise you are probably not all that interesting to them. When you get older, you discover that most of what you do is utterly ignored by the police, government, secret services etc. There's far too much RELEVANT information as it is, and far too few police officers, secret agents etc. I mean, when you can hardly even get the police to come and take up a report on a burglary, why expect that they would spend much energy snooping on your online traffic? If they do, it is in the hope that they can employ automatic filters to discard most of it.

        When you get to my age, you realise that most of what you've done is pretty normal, and that you simply don't give a hoot if others know about it.

        • Re:first godwin (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 19, 2015 @12:46PM (#50759227)

          It's not about you.

          That's what people don't get. Nobody gives a shit about you. It's about control and power. If I know everything about everyone, it gives me an unbelievable amount of power.

          So even if you are as clean as the driven snow, and even if nobody in power ever takes an interest in you, you're still as vulnerable as the rest of us to the type of tyranny this enables. And God forbid you ever do raise the interest of "the authorities," because even if you are as clean as the driven snow (unlikely), they can still find a way to f### you up royally if they know every single thing about you.

          But as I said, it's not about you. It's about US. That's why most people don't get it.

          • Not to mention...

            Let's say, for the sake of argument, you're okay with the government having the means to eavesdrop on you and track your online activity, because they say they need it to keep you safe. Are you still okay if they hand some of that off to the MPAA because their automated analyzers see what looks like torrent traffic? And they hand other bits off to the Secret Service or your local police department because there's a high probability you're looking to purchase marijuana?

            Those additional quest

    • No. Hitler got to power because he offered the people something better, and people voted for that. From the onset he looked like a typical politician. He offered public health, public schooling, and a program to ensure 100% employment at a time of great depression. You'd be mad not to want that.

      The batshit crazy portion happened AFTER he got to power.

      • Hitler wasn't voted into power, he took power after the death of the standing chancellor. Hitler only ever lost in elections.
        • Hitler only ever lost in elections.

          Wow really? Where did you learn that?

          I guess his greatest ever loss must have been the referendum he sent to Austria on a decision to become part of the Germany. A lovely voting form with Adolf Hitler's name in big letters across the top. 99% voted for the merger and having Hitler as their new ruler, and a 99% voter turnout to boot.

          If you look through Germany's election history Hitler's party with Hitler at the top consistently controlled the most number of seats (and thus was the ruling party as decided BY

  • by Anonymous Coward

    With all the mass shootings having an email peeked at is the least of our worries. - Benjamin Franklin

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 19, 2015 @10:24AM (#50757935)

    Don't confuse ignorance with acceptance.

    • by kilfarsnar ( 561956 ) on Monday October 19, 2015 @10:43AM (#50758119)

      Don't confuse ignorance with acceptance.

      Yes, exactly. I came here to post this. The issue is that people are short-sighted and have limited imagination. Everyone thinks this stuff is done to catch "bad guys". They don't consider themselves a possible target.

      People are okay with their employer snooping on their Internet traffic at work. Would they be okay if information gathered during that snooping were a factor in their next performance review? I would hope not. But it's not framed that way and they don't look at it that way.

      • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Monday October 19, 2015 @10:52AM (#50758199) Homepage Journal
        Well, this has been working a long time now. It started years back with the then "controversial" types of things like cameras in the elementary school rooms, and then more and more.

        They have gotten kids used to be monitored.

        And now we see the results. It goes well with the old saying:

        "What one generation accepts....the following generations embrace."

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Well, this has been working a long time now. It started years back with the then "controversial" types of things like cameras in the elementary school rooms, and then more and more.

          They have gotten kids used to be monitored.

          And now we see the results. It goes well with the old saying:

          "What one generation accepts....the following generations embrace."

          Remember that one time, that principal guy was using the webcams on school-supplied laptops to spy on kids at home? Oh, it was only to track 'stolen laptops'? Stolen is any laptop off of school premises, even when the student has permission to take it home? Yeah. Wake up, people. Wait, it's too late. Why do I even bother? *head-desk*

      • ...People are okay with their employer snooping on their Internet traffic at work. Would they be okay if information gathered during that snooping were a factor in their next performance review?

        I agree with you 100%. That's one of the issues that people are silly enough to bend and believe when they see it on the required federal and state law posters at work: "It's illegal for an employer to..."

        Yeah. But they do it anyway. They just don't SHARE they they're doing it. That means they're not, right? Psh.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 19, 2015 @10:47AM (#50758161)

      I'm thinking it might be an issue with the wording.

      For example, I'm against dragnet gathering of information. I'm against unwarranted snooping and such. What I want and what I'd accept is getting a third party to authorize it on their name in a case by case basis. Ya' know. A Warrant. In many cases where they could have gotten one after the fact, they didn't bother. This is why I'm against it. I'm also against agencies tracking behavior for ad revenue. I'd say I hate that more than anything else. Even if nothing comes of it, I consider it an unwarranted dragnet approach, where it can become an easy vector for other agencies to know more about me when I don't want them to know about me.

      • "it can become an easy vector for other agencies to know more about me when I don't want them to know about me."

        That is precisely what CISPA is all about. Government goes into partnership with all the major advertising agencies, major companies, and internet providers. To be a member of that unhallowed partnership, you are required to collect and share data with all other partners.

  • by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Monday October 19, 2015 @10:28AM (#50757975) Homepage

    So in my lifetime America has gone from "give me liberty or give me death" to a bunch of scared sheep repeating "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear"?

    Essentially your liberty and freedom have been traded away to allow your government to watch everything you do as long as they pretend to be keeping you safe?

    In 30 years we've gone from Americans making "papers please, comrade" jokes to fully embracing being constantly monitored for their own protection.

    That's pretty damned pathetic.

    Land of the free, home of the brave ... not so much.

    • The majority seemed to be generally opposed to the government using them, but very open to private organizations using them. The idea being that if you are on your employer's machine on their network, you have no privacy rights that supercede the employer's interests in your use of their property, which is a view that probably would have been acceptable in 1776. In fact, the very notion that an employee can do private work while on the employer's dime is a fairly modern concept.

      • by Qzukk ( 229616 )

        60 percent of respondents said that they would react negatively if they discovered that a network they currently use employed TLS proxies

        It's pretty clear to me that the majority was opposed to having THEMSELVES be the target of spying, but perfectly fine with spying on everyone else.

    • So in my lifetime America has gone from "give me liberty or give me death" to a bunch of scared sheep repeating "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear"?

      In your lifetime? Were you born in 1775? Are you the ghost of Patrick Henry?

      • You must understand that for many Americans, both in the past and now in our current time, that phrase was a touchstone of truth, to be honored. Just because it was spoken over two hundred years ago doesn't take away from its importance to American culture and history.

        If you're not American I can understand your confusion.
        If you are American, perhaps you need to read up on American history and politics, and lessen your ignorance.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      The 20th century saw a fairly steady erosion of Liberty as America faced two world wars, several major regional wars, the red scare, the threat of nuclear war and civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. New technology has extended the reach of government surveillance at every turn. And the growth of both real fears and ungrounded paranoia have convinced those who were already inclined to use those tools against their own countrymen. There have always been snoops, the real threa

    • So in my lifetime America has gone from "give me liberty or give me death" to a bunch of scared sheep repeating "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear"?

      Essentially your liberty and freedom have been traded away to allow your government to watch everything you do as long as they pretend to be keeping you safe?

      Don't be naive. People traded away their liberty and freedom in order to demand free webmail, cheap cell phones and free apps.

      The reasons are much more pathetic than you think they are. No one uses Gmail because they think it will keep them safe from terrorists.

      • You're right. For a lot of people, the benefits outweigh the costs. Start showing people that their privacy has value and maybe the trend will be reversed.

    • by Kjella ( 173770 )

      So in my lifetime America has gone from "give me liberty or give me death" to a bunch of scared sheep repeating "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear"?

      Only if you're like 240 years old. Yes, yes I know all about what you did in WWII but it was mostly liberating and not so much dying, you might get a few points for the 1860s but outside of a few war veterans that have served abroad the average American hasn't really had to make that choice in ages. There might have been some high stakes poker played in the 1960s, but that was all done by the politicians. Having heard a bit from the occupation and resistance during the Nazi occupation here in Norway it's no

    • Yes, the good old USA that brought us phone wiretapping, Comstock laws, and the Espionage act, immorality fears and the 'Production Code', the yellow peril and internment camps, red scares, McCarthyism and global proxy wars, prohibition, the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover, the demonization of marijuana and psychedelics, the war on drugs, and on, and on... and don't get me started on slavery and civil rights.

      From the Salem witch trials forward America has been famous for getting itself in a tizzy over imagined mora

      • Yes, the good old USA that brought us phone wiretapping,

        And the telephone in the first place (albeit debatable) .

        Comstock laws,

        Yes, it's a good thing the Catholic church didn't have such things in Europe prior to the existence of America.. The USA invented morality laws. And just look how liberal the middle east is about such things.

        and the Espionage act,

        Yup, no other country has had anything similar before or since, right?

        immorality fears and the 'Production Code',

        It's a good thing no other countries use a rating system on films and such now. I guess China and Russia owe the US a great debt for showing them the light when it comes to cens

    • by ShaunC ( 203807 )

      O say does that surveillance camera yet gaze,
      O'er the land of police,
      And the home of the 'fraid.

    • by amiga3D ( 567632 )

      The thing is, they are going to spy on you. It doesn't matter if you want it or not, if they admit it or not, if it's illegal or not. They can't not do it. It's who and what they are. If they can then they will. I think we need to make it so it's inadmissible in court without a warrant and then they can spy away. If they catch someone smuggling nukes into Boston that's probably never going to court anyway. As far as less catastrophic stuff they wont be able to use it.

  • by Karmashock ( 2415832 ) on Monday October 19, 2015 @10:29AM (#50757981)

    They should have stuck to very very simple questions if they were talking to a low information survey pool.

    Questions like:
    Do you want the government reading everyone's email?
    Do you mind if corporations know your every activity on the internet?

    Avoid the technical crap. Just keep it very very simple.

    *drops mic and walks*

  • by rtkluttz ( 244325 ) on Monday October 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#50757999) Homepage

    I work in network security, but I'm also highly sensitive to snooping and privacy issues. If you own it, you should be able to see the traffic. If you own the home or business network and home or business computer, then you should be able to see what is going on within that network and computer regardless of who is using it. I do need to draw a huge distinction between a privately owned systems and networks versus systems that qualify as service or carrier networks. If you sell or re-sell bandwidth then you should NOT have ability to view that traffic. On a similar note, encryption should be able to be used against the owner of devices. All encrypted traffic generated from apps/services on a device should be viewable clear-text by the owner of the device. Too often nowadays, encryption is used to the detriment of owners. Same goes for computer code. i.e. the Volkswagen scandel. Owners should have the option to see and review everything that occurs in their devices. That (transparency) is the *** ONLY *** way that companies will ever stop doing what they do.

    • So in the modern world of "you don't own the machine or software" you merely license it, this would mean ms and apple can look at your machine at any moment since you don't and cannot own it? If ownership of what you bought was a right, then perhaps what you are suggest might make sense. But these days there is precious a citizen can and does own.

      • You do own the machine and that is exactly what I was talking about. There should be consumer protections in place that enforce that software creators cannot use your devices against you. The owner of the device SHOULD be able to see all communications from that device whether it is phones, PC's tablets, cars, radios etc.

    • I work in network security, but I'm also highly sensitive to snooping and privacy issues. If you own it, you should be able to see the traffic. If you own the home or business network and home or business computer, then you should be able to see what is going on within that network and computer regardless of who is using it. I do need to draw a huge distinction between a privately owned systems and networks versus systems that qualify as service or carrier networks. If you sell or re-sell bandwidth then you should NOT have ability to view that traffic. On a similar note, encryption should be able to be used against the owner of devices. All encrypted traffic generated from apps/services on a device should be viewable clear-text by the owner of the device. Too often nowadays, encryption is used to the detriment of owners. Same goes for computer code. i.e. the Volkswagen scandel. Owners should have the option to see and review everything that occurs in their devices. That (transparency) is the *** ONLY *** way that companies will ever stop doing what they do.

      Should your parents/wife/partner, etc. be able to see everything that you send/store/receive?

      Should the have visibility of communications of the people that live in it?

      Should the government of a free country be allowed to read the private emails of all its citizens, giving that government the power to abuse such information by blackmailing those citizens in the future?

      Encryption or lack of encryption wouldn't have changed anything at Volkswagen or any other company that willfully breaks the law (ie banks w

      • You are fundamentally missing what I'm saying. If I own the PC or the device, I should have a window to all communications coming to or leaving that device as its owner before encryption is applied to the communication. That should be a "right" of anyone owning a device. As the owner of a private network and the devices on a network, I as administrator of that network or some delegate of my choosing should have the ability to use technology such as SSL inspection using a man in the middle device to inspect

  • A few points (Score:4, Informative)

    by pushing-robot ( 1037830 ) on Monday October 19, 2015 @10:40AM (#50758077)

    (1) Most people don't understand the full ramifications of breaking encryption. If they knew the 'snoopers' could impersonate them, steal their accounts, etc, they likely would have responded differently.
    (2) In no situation was the majority of respondents in favor of 'snooping' without notification
    (3) Only in workplaces, schools and libraries were the majority willing to accept 'snooping' without consent (but with notification).
    (4) The majority were against government surveillance, even with notification and consent.

    IMHO, most things should be legal, with appropriate notification and informed consent of those who might be negatively affected.

  • As Ben Franklin said, "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." Between gun control, internet privacy and everything else, it's just plain sad.
  • by JohnFen ( 1641097 ) on Monday October 19, 2015 @10:45AM (#50758149)

    My employer owns my work machine and supplies the network it's connected to. I accept that the employer's right to monitor his own equipment and network.

    However, that's a FAR cry from accepting internet surveillance. In fact, I never attach any of my personal devices to my employer's network precisely because I do not accept the surveillance of my own equipment.

    • My employer owns my work machine and supplies the network it's connected to. I accept that the employer's right to monitor his own equipment and network.

      Unless you're one of the very few who think it'd be acceptable for employers to monitor all telephone calls on "their equipment," (or open US mail letters enclosed in "their envelopes") I call total bullshit on your argument. This bizarre concept that computers and networks are somehow different from previous means of electronic communication should be exposed for the fraud that it is.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      That was an interesting distinction one of my past employers made. I was surprised they even made that distinction since none of the people calling the shots were what you or I would call tech saavy. They stated it clearly when I asked if we had an employee WiFi network. I was given the password and a warning that whatever I do on their network may be monitored by them and/or law enforcement agencies. That if I wanted privacy it was my own responsibility and they would not accommodate it. It even had sugges

  • by CimmerianX ( 2478270 ) on Monday October 19, 2015 @10:47AM (#50758159)

    Most, non-technical people simply do not understand the implications of using those 'reward cards' linked to credit cards, posting your entire life on facebook, allowing your phone to know your location 24/7, letting your car manufacturer sell you all those flatscreen gadgets, etc...

  • by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Monday October 19, 2015 @10:51AM (#50758189)
    The real reasons against mass surveillance with minimal secret oversight have seldom if ever been pointed out to or thought about by your average American.

    I've talked to many family, friends, co-workers, and acquaintances and they all say the same thing in general - "I'm not that interesting so it really dosent matter." Neither am I but while true it's far from the problem. The problem is while mass surveillance has always existed, it so pervasive, massive, and easily accessable from databases that it is a game changer for doctoring the entire political and financial climate of the United States.

    They have incriminating material on every last CEO, judge, congressman, president, senator, and even on down to the mayor of the random city of your choice. They can, and I have no doubt are already implementing, blackmailing, schemeing and conspiracies against the public. Take a look at the reaction of the whole European MP data collection.
    But it goes beyond that. Knowing absolutely the political preferences alone is bad, far worse than the intrusive data collection ubiquitous today in both parties. In fact without serious and public oversight this type of system is a far bigger threat to American (and every country with any freedoms left) democracy than any terrorist group ever could be.
  • by pecosdave ( 536896 ) on Monday October 19, 2015 @10:59AM (#50758253) Homepage Journal

    We've got at least a weekly "feel bad because you're male and you work in the computer field" article, and we mostly flame those, but we've come to expect them.

    Now we're getting the opinion poll to manipulate opinion. [naturalnews.com]

    I miss the real / old Slashdot that exposed shit like this instead of propagating it.

  • by tomhath ( 637240 ) on Monday October 19, 2015 @11:05AM (#50758299)

    Users are largely unaware that some corporations inspect their employee's encrypted traffic to alter malware and viruses, prevent the leak of intellectual property, and block harmful websites.

    Really? Are those "users" employed? Every place I've worked made it quite clear that they monitored all network traffic.

    User opinions toward TLS proxies are nuanced. Many express concerns about privacy and identity theft from hackers (75.8%) or surveillance by the government (70.9%). Yet there is broad, general acceptance of TLS proxies when used by employers, schools, etc (71.7%).

    No surprise there. Employers and schools own the network, they own the traffic. I am surprised that 25-30% are not concerned about surveillance outside of those environments, but it's not clear to me that the people being paid $1 to take the survey were Americans or adults.

  • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Monday October 19, 2015 @11:13AM (#50758393) Homepage

    Very Dumb Americans Show 'Surprising Willingness' To Accept Internet Surveillance.

    FTFY

  • If they could have predicted this poll, they probably would have just said "fuck it", packed up, and gone home, instead of fighting for independence from England.

    • by dryeo ( 100693 )

      Even then, if the surveillance was presented the right way, eg "catching them evil loyalists", most would have been fine with it. Remember that during the revolution legislative powers were used regularly to remove the rights of the evil Tories.

    • Perhaps if we in the USA didn't have our 'fearless' political 'theater' installed by mafia at the discretion of British banksters and the presiding pedo-bear in the Vatican, then the constitution would not have been subverted. England pulled an insurrection anyway by use of commerce and religion to defeat government that had opposition to being ruled and taxed by a batch of thugs far away. Don't think for a minute that the people here do not see this, the government here sold the people out and have bigge

  • Well, you can have all the RSA you want implemented. Truth is you're only going to get 99% secure, given it only takes a few minutes to undo all traditional security with a quantum processor. (Thanks Peter Shor)

    Aside from the lack of available technology to properly secure everyday communications, we have horribly implemented ones like cellphone traffic. It is pretty straightforward to fake a tower, (even plop a fake tower on a drone) and capture phone traffic, send fake sms, so on and so forth.
    What c
  • In other related news, most Americans still are reluctant to sharing photos of their genitalia with the Government ; many of them, adamantly so.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Here are the bullet point findings from the actual study:

    User opinions toward TLS proxies are nuanced. Many
    express concerns about privacy and identity theft from
    hackers (75.8%) or surveillance by the government
    (70.9%). Yet there is broad, general acceptance of TLS
    proxies when used by employers, schools, etc (71.7%).

    [Recognizing, no doubt, that organizations that own their networks should be able to operate them as they see fit]

    Most participants indicated support for inspection of
    encrypted trac as long as they were rst notied of it
    (90.7%). Likewise, participants indicated strong sup-
    port for legislation requiring notication or consent
    (83.2%).

    [The 90.7% makes me a little suspicious of the wording the study used. I suspect if the questions dealt with a specific scenario like "Would you oppose or favor the use of a TLS proxy to allow your ISP to capture and read the network traffic (including passwords) between your computer and your financial institution's online banking website

  • by jd.schmidt ( 919212 ) on Monday October 19, 2015 @12:07PM (#50758917)
    That is because most people are quite sensible. The simple fact is all this stuff is already recorded, the phone company knows who you called, the Web site knows you visited and the email hosts knows you sent the email. Most people are relying on secure through obscurity and they know it full well. Even if the government doesn't have your records, the vendor always does and everyone knows full well they would have to turn it over to the government if forced. What people really want to know is the rules of the road and what the government is up to and what they are doing with it, just like they want to know what the business is up to and what they business will do with their data.
  • >> There was less agreement when it came to employees using personal devices; approximately a third of respondents opposed surveillance in that case."

    So wait.... 2/3 of all Americans believe your employer should have full access to whatever you do with your personal devices and life? So much for the USA being the self-proclaimed "Land of the free". WTF are you guys smoking ?

  • "I pledge allegiance to the Corporations of the United States, and to the Republic which they freely rape.

    One Nation brainwashed and addled to believe in a "God," divided by ignorance and wealth, with Liberty and Justice only for the well-off."

    ---

    Well, America, isn't this what you wanted? Free stuff for everyone? Have the big corporations supply your every need, have the Big Bad Federal Government supply your every protection?

    You got it. Now enjoy it. Gooooood luck getting rid of it!

  • Either the government is trying to convince people that surveillance is OK by having an academic institution claim (falsely) that we're already OK with it, or over 90% of people just don't understand the ramifications of their supposedly secure traffic being monitored/surveilled; it's a coin-flip which one it really is.

    MEMO TO GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE ASSHOLES: Get the fuck out of my business! You're TRAITORS to this country; YOU are the terrorists now, fuck the fuck off!
  • "They found, perhaps surprisingly, that over 90% of users are fine with somebody snooping their encrypted traffic, so long as they were informed of the snooping."

    Of course they are; they will just watch what they say. The point of spying on someone is to catch them saying something they are not supposed to say. I am not saying I agree with snooping, just that telling someone "hey, we are watching your data" basically makes the activity pointless.
  • by Somebody Is Using My ( 985418 ) on Monday October 19, 2015 @01:07PM (#50759455) Homepage

    Never trust a survey where they do not disclose the exact questions being asked of the participants, whether it supports your belief or discredits it. What is asked is often as important as who is being asked (the demographics of the questioner is important too). All of these factors can and have been manipulated by the survey-takers in order to reach a desired conclusion (and sometimes it is not even being done purposefully).

    In this case, it sounds like the questions of the survey (there is no full list but a few hints scattered throughout the PDF) were intentionally difficult for people to understand unless they had a grounding in the topic - computers, encryption, networking and security - being discussed. People tend to turn off their brain when confronted with this level of complexity and assume that the authorities who do understand this sort of thing have our best interests at heart (it seems built into the human psyche). Likely had the questions been more grounded - e.g., "do you think the government should be able to read any and all of your private mails, be it electronic or paper?" the results would have been different.

  • An entire fucking nation of Lenin's 'Useful Idiots'. Thanks for the police state, you pack of knuckle-dragging thought-free troglodytes and Helicopter Parents insisting their precious snowflakes be safely ensconced in a damned panopticon
  • Actually, what I'm concealing provides quite a bit more assurance than banalities ever will.
  • Americans Show 'Surprising Willingness' To Accept Internet Surveillance

    Uh, who, exactly, is surprised at this late date?

  • Users fine with snooping says snooping apparatus :)
  • Nobody cares. We have nothing to hide.

To get something done, a committee should consist of no more than three persons, two of them absent.

Working...