Discussion on:

Survey says: People do care about their privacy

Thanks for the information. Maybe privacy policies need to use some real world examples, like this, assume you are User A and Company A is the company you are using for a service:

Example Policy: Using this service User A's searches we be stored for 2 years with Company A and provided to Company B, C, D. during this period. User A's contacts will be scanned and things you like with the service will automatically be offered as ads to all your contacts, which will also be stored with Company A for 2 years.
When you terminate your account, no additional data will be created however all existing data will remain for a period of 2 years.

Basically show the results or actions of agreeing to the polices upfront and not just burried in legalize in a 20 page document several sub-links from the sign up form. Of course as mentioned we need a way to deal with changes to the policies.

Policy Change: We will be saving data for 3 years and sharing it with the Government. If you wish to continue with this service, please confirm by... or your account will be terminated.

All this seems to come down to, inform people what is going on and allow them to make choices (opt-in) as opposed to hide what you are doing and automatically sign up (opt-out).

It seems like this conversation will go back and forth until enough people complain and new laws are created to fix the situation as companies may try to take advantage of you.

I think you have a good idea.

The research team was concerned about that, but what concerned them more was the lack of transparency when companies made policy changes.

Company B, C, D. during this period will not be included in the Fair Usage Policy. They are are free to do as they please with the data that they are given by Company A and do not have to directly do anything to get approval from User A.

Officially Company B C or D are free to do what they please with User A's details and you have better believe that they will be sharing that data with other companies so what User A originally signed up for and accepted is meaningless when Companies E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z and others get passed that data to do as they please with.

Provided that the Governments are reasonable which none currently are they will be getting the same information from many sources all around the world and building up their Surveillance Lists on whoever is of interest to them.

So you join Face Book Today and by tomorrow Russia, China and Cuba will likely have your details to do as they please with and not one of them has any Acceptable Usage Policy to comply with.

Col

'user data'-sharing recipients; ie as long as the NSA et al are on that list (companies B,C, and D), data-gathering/dissemination policies are going to stay as they are--and only a few users (the commodity itself!) are really bothered by it. Most users (and data-pimps know *this* much about human nature), although 'upset' or 'bothered', will do nothing more than complain amongst themselves a bit in private (or, in the case of survey respondents, to academia)...users have shown, time and again as data-policies change out from under those under which they signed-up, that they whine a little *but continue to use the 'service'*. FB et al know their users better than the users know themselves! The FB faithful aren't going to quit until or unless they hear that all 5 to 50,000+ of their e-friends are quitting, too. Instead, they simply make the conscious and sub-conscious adjustments to 'assumed surveillance' that allow them to continue with their little hobby, or convienience, or e-social life. These adjustments to their outlook, knowing about themselves that they permit ongoing violations of their person and privacy, help them keep their composure when asked to 'show their papers' to some authority (for having carried a day-pack or somesuch), or while being felt up in public in the airport. They are learning to accept and accomodate all manner of privacy/freedom violations under the comical rubric of 'their overall security'. I don't think their discomfiture or rebellion goes much farther than venting at the water cooler, though, about privacy or anything else; if it did, policies would change overnight (as would TSA abuses, again) if users were to enact, say, a week-long boycott of the service in question.....
(edit): EOR, and thank you for another interesting column, Michael!

History proves you right. Have you looked into the psychology behind it at all? I'm trying to find research on that aspect, as it is certainly fascinating.

introduction to the societal psychology of marketing both products (sales) and ideas (propaganda). Equally interesting is the list of some of his famous clients. That should help, provided I spelled his last name correctly (I just woke up)!

is also known as "letting the market decide"

Do you feel that an informed market would react the same?

If you are not comfortable putting your personal information on a highway billboard, then don't put it on a device.
Simple.

Good Points guys. It seems then we have a problem in that the people's expectations are that they have some privacy however the businesses do whatever they want and even though people had the expectation, they soon just go along with the crowd and give up. It seems the only solution is more laws to change things, sigh...

Nothing scientific, but I have a feeling that a lot of people will answer a survey question
differently from the way they behave in the actual circumstance. For instance, how many
of those responders that answered "do not allow" on the question of cell phone apps
collecting your contact data have already installed apps on their phones and blindly
clicked "agree" when presented with the question (if presented at all) to allow access
to your contacts? Many people will answer survey questions in a way that gives the
impression that they are careful with their personal information, when in reality they
are careless!

I also suspect that many mobile users are not fully aware of just how much information they share. Survey respondents may incorrectly think they are effectively guarding their privacy through certain choices they make, or they may even say they are guarding their privacy to make themselves feel better after realizing--through taking the survey--that they are over-sharing. Whenever an app offers an easy and convenient social sharing function, users tend to take advantage of it before going through a lengthy thought process of just what they are agreeing to. It is sort of a virtual/social peer pressure. Everyone else is doing it, and you are not cool or up to speed if you are not participating.

What your headline should say is that "When people are asked directly the say they care about privacy".

The truth is somewhat different as we all know. It's not that most people don't care, more that most people don't ever even think about whether to care or not. Even after being informed they rarely think about it on a regular basis.

I hope these surveyors didn't try to contact me and get rebuffed. If I was less than friendly, I'm sorry. I'd love to have participated, but I've about had it with phone calls that pretend to be surveys and then end up presenting information about a product or a candidate, issue, etc. Our landline may go days without a call from a "real" person, but we'll get close to a dozen of these "surveys" or "questions" a week. Many of them are pretty blatant attempts to get around the "Do Not Call" list.

My current solution is to have the landline go to the answering machine after two rings, expecting that anyone who really wants to communicate with us will leave a message.

Good article, Michael

Part of the problem is that the thinking of different surveyors is different. They're going to ask different questions, in different order, and get what ssseeeeeem to be conflicting results.

Is "mobile device data" more, less, or as secure as data on desk-tops? Which data? There's no constant collecting of location sitting on the desk-top device to be tapped at later convenience. Sure, there's location data, but it's nowhere near as precise nor constantly updated. Should such location data be stored on desk-top devices, or stored on devices to which they connect on the net? Of course not... and yet they are. Is location data nearly frequently updated and very precise on mobile devices? Usually, yes. Of course they should not be, and yet they are. How long should phone companies keep your location? Milliseconds. Set up the connection, then delete. Update it, then delete. It shouldn't remember for longer than it takes to send/receive a few packets.

For every ad you send, you've got to pay $20, and then index that for inflation, what with QEn, and I may increase my charges from time to time without notice and on an individual basis, e.g. to cope with especially obnoxious ads, maybe to charge extra for op-eds which are actually thinly disguised ads (which TR/ZD/CBS has been getting worse and worse about lately), to charge hospitals and specific employees thereof extra for exporting personal private information out of the building or out of state or out of the country or to any government officials or functionaries.

Should "officers" or any other guberment thugs and nosies get permission before obtaining and recording in detail personal private information? Of course, that's what the US constitution, and many state constitutions strictly require. But corrupt judges and other government thugs usually ignore those explicit requirements for the sake of their own convenience. They should be locked away with the rest of the general jail/prison population for a few days for each and every such violation. Building up to the level of "probable cause" must be done by personal observation by multiple people, not with surveillance devices, taps, cameras, audio-recorders, etc.

Should a store be able to call your phone? Once, and with that contact should be delivered information precise enough to include the location of the calling device and connected human, that human's "supervisor", the executive of the contractor in many cases, the executive in charge of the division of the firm behind the call, their home phone numbers and addresses, etc. Should they be able to find out your phone's or similar device's number or equivalent? Hardly ever. Should the government be able to find out your phone or other device's number? Hardly ever. What's good for the government is good for the citizenry. You want to know where we sleep, we have to know where all of you sleep. You want to know down to the inch where each of us was born, then we should have ready access down to the inch where every government official was born (or whipped up in the lab), etc. You want your domestic paramilitary squads to drive tanks and carry anti-tank weaponry paid for with our earnings, then we should be able to do the same.

Would I allow apps to collect my contact info? Well, one app -- my "keep friends' and relatives' contact info" app, whose data store should not be accessible by anyone or anything else at all.