Discussion on:

What's with Generation Y and online privacy?

Social media, while useful for the rapid distribution of information, also serves as a vehicle for a sense of self-importance to those who feel that people really care what they ate, what they did, and who they don't like. Too often this rapid sharing of information causes issues though. Several things come to mind. First, you can't tell tone or intent via text. My own kids will say "can you believe what so and so said?". Almost always it's something that can be taken several different ways...usually the worst is assumed. Second, most people would NEVER say things to peoples face that they'll write in a text, email, blog, or other methods that don't involve actually seeing someone. And third, once sent/posted/tweeted, many of those comments that seemed appropriate to that mood at that one particular moment, can't easily be retracted.

The comedy of the Gen-Y's is they don't see that they're often losing the ability to communicate face to face, and they share details of their lives online that perhaps they'd never do in person and as with most things online, controlling information once "out there" is very difficult. They'll get it eventually, hopefully before they do or say something they'll regret years later.

the ability (knowledge) to better control one's "privacy" yields a less-worrysome attitude about possiole violations of that privacy.

Or, the "Gen-Y" have not yet experienced the consequences of poor management of their privacy.

Privacy is already gone and guess which generation took it away? CISPA is just the beginning. Protecting your privacy on the Internet is a catch 22. The only way to guarantee privacy is to not go on the Internet.

if you tell your employer that...

Is what your definition of privacy is. Without knowing that it is hard to have a discussion. Millennials have a different definition than you do. Determining who is right is a whole different thing.

to solve if you never publicly use your real name. I haven't since 2001. And If I have to, I use fake background information; although for the sake of accurate interaction with other professionals, I don't do that here on TR. If you do a simple Google search of my fake name, you will see me all over the place. That doesn't bother me much.

Nick did hit it on the nail head though. I did have to use my real name when I was employed by a non-profit. But we were under tight HIPAA regulations, and even my email was under SSL and VPN during my entire stay there. So I doubt much leaked to the public arena.

You are most likely in many databases government and other-wise. My research has shown that most privacy breaches are through attacks on these databases, not what an individual does or does not do.

to what Michael said, there is the degrees of separation problem. They can figure out who you are by linking back through your friends and behavior on the net. (They being FB in particular.) Trying to remain anonymous is pretty much a futile effort these days thanks to the amount of data they have and how they can mine it.

but if you become that kind of a target, all bets are off anyway. I just would like to fly just below the radar of the robot types of surveilance. Of course Michael points out that it is the compromise of the online vendors that cause one big leak in that area of personal identity, and he has a good point there.

It is too bad that some kind of realistic security standard didn't come out with congressional over-site a long time ago; but lawmakers are too ignorant to even think about pushing in that direction. I suppose true privacy is doomed, but I'm still willing to beat the drum no matter what.

We need drum beaters.

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2012/generations.aspx

They grew up with the government knowing who they were by parents giving up their SSN's to schools. They were encouraged to share and receive accolades for the sharing. Not saying there is anything wrong with that in a exploding population where security becomes "Big Brother" The fallout is soon to be seen.

As to what you mean by "Security becomes Big Brother?" As a huge fan of Mr. Blair, I have to ask.

that they got SSNs in the hospital when they were born (rather than waiting until they began to work, like us oldsters...

I thought it was odd, and realized that SSN was being used for more than employment. I have written articles about bad guys who find new-born SSN and sell them. As the new born or parents are not going to worry about the SSN until the child starts working.

The first year the Infernal Revenue started requiring SSNs on the tax return for all claimed children, there were seven million fewer exemptions claimed.

One example:
In a nation wide (Netherlands) electronics chain the cashier asked for part of my zip code. The complete zip code in the Netherlands determin the city and which part of a street you live in. The first 4 digits determine the block you live in. The answer to the question of the cashier would give:
- the block I lived in
- what I bought
- At which time frame
- What kind of payment I used
- Probably by using a debit/creditcard who I am.
- The amount I spend.
- Which subsidiary of the store

Combine this information with thousands of other such transactions these stores can put together a lot of demographic information....

to transmit this information over SSL or even a VPN connection. I don't consider that quite in the same category as this topic. However, I can see your point as to how much information is actually needed for a clerk in an ordinary mercantile transaction.

Merchants are clueless as to why or what is needed to carry out the transaction. They just do what is required for them to get paid.

and I keep forgetting about sloppy point of sale practices; thanks for bringing me back to reality once again! or perhaps is more appropriate?

Sometimes avoiding reality is more fun.

A while back I wrote an article about how a group of researchers were able to glean a person's entire social security number from just the last four digits and the information you mentioned.

this person recommends dispensing with privacy completely, and using a firm(ware) data base as a cross check to protect your rights. The argument being it is worse to have someone build a fake you than the real you - Might be on to something here - under this system your ID could never be compromised, because it is written in stone - so to speak - so no one could simulate you - and no one could rob the data base for more knowledge to complicate the scheme.

Perhaps this would make it easier to clean up one's ID at the big three credit bureaus because they would have an authority they could cross check. I saw on 60 minutes Sunday, that it is still a nightmare to get inaccurate information off your credit report, because they essentially leave the onus on you to prove yourself! A very vexing situation indeed!

They aren't the same thing. How is putting all my information on public display protecting it?

This would be a data base that was only used by authorities and credit bureaus for reference. Privacy is the issue here, because that is exactly what protects your personal ID. Social sites, and other vendors, would only have access to certain data, but that data would be like a flag or benchmark, you wouldn't really be able to verify exactly who the individual is in a complete way, but you would know the flag was legitimate, because the underlying data base would be without compromise. Obviously to develop such a data base, you would have to have the latest and most high assurance system, and new security technology to harden such a site. This would be a system that was better than Fort Knox, and actually the government is a bad example, because I believe even DARPA has been compromised in the past.

My client actually did want full disclosure, because this individual saw inaccurate information as more dangerous than everyone knowing exactly who you are. I'm not willing to go that far, but my modification of the idea seems possible. The "Flag" I reference here, would be an encrypted ghost identity tied to the real data. That way if a vendor was compromised, a cross check would catch the anomaly and dump the old ID, to create a new one, that was synchronized across the internet automatically. The criminals couldn't do anything with the old information any more, so they couldn't impact the victim of the privacy breach.

And the government does not have to disclose if they get compromised.

I'm already paying with a debit card. If they can't mine that data for the relevant information, I see no reason to help them.

Several years ago, a K-mart cashier said she had no way to process my purchase without a phone number. Her manager agreed. Whether they were right or wrong, I haven't been back since.

Was the inability K-Mart based or the card processor? I guess K-mart should have changed the policy as they are no longer around.

I suggested entering all '9's, all '0', the store number, but both clerk and manager rejected these ideas. It wasn't the card reader; I was verbally asked by the clerk, who was going to punch it into the cash register. If it actually was a programming requirement, then somebody had his head WAY up his sphincter.

K-Mart is still around (including the store I no longer patronize), but it's on its back and feebly kicking its legs in the air.

I thought Sears and K-Mart did the merge thing. They all disappeared around here.

Occasionally you will see a surviving K-Mart in the heartland. It depends on the local market - and customers are loyal to them. I suspect the reason is that the local manager is a genius compared to the other local big lots that shrivel an die.

Sort of. One of our customers has equipment in K-Mart (and just about everywhere else, as well!). I have four or five in my territory.

They are independent or part of Sears?

Sort of the poor man's choice. You still find the standard K-Mart fare, but you can also buy Craftsman tools, Kenmore appliances, and other Sears brands there. You just don't have the selection you would at a full-on Sears store.

While the prices might be somewhat higher than at Walmart, the service is much better.

the K-Mart prices generally beat Walmart's. Wally World only lowers enough price points to get people into the store so they can bait and switch everyone. I hate going there, but they are typically the only supply source that actually stocks what I need. I always go to Target first, and it is almost always cheaper. Plus I can find EVERYTHING - unlike Wally World! I hate that place!

There's no way to verify that its your REAL phone number, so just start rattling off some digits. Far easier than storming out of the store without your purchases.

Five three oh ni-i-ine

A fine memory it is,

Now I'll have bloody Tommy Tutone in my head until I get in the truck and fire up something normal, well...OTHER 80's tunes anyway.
OMG, it's started already, GET OUT OF MY HEAD! YOU DIDN'T MAKE TODAY'S, MENTAL PLAYLIST!!!

If that phrase is good enough for K-Mart's competitors, it's good enough for K-Mart.

If you don't tell a business why you won't be returning, how will they know why they're losing customers? Radio Shack used to ask for this information, until enough customers complained and they stopped.

My son worked for RS and remembers that.

I know online it doesn't always work. They must be able to run the number real time to test it.

Possibly the exchange numbers too.

Easy to avoid with a $10 burner phone from Radio Shack, registered to an address that doesn't exist and paid for with cash.

My son worked for RS for years and they still ran a simple credit check, at least in the corporate store where he worked.

Too many other places I can shop without $10 overhead.

those phones do come in handy at times.

since I don't know what a 'burner' phone is. My not knowing wasn't relevant to my position on not spending money to meet a seller's requirements. They may have other uses that make them worth purchasing; K-mart ain't one of them.

In a marketing course I took for my MBA in 1989, I was told that marketing firms already had databases that could track shopping and other information down to the city block level. The difference now is that people have become more aware of this since the internet made a lot of public information easily accessible.

BTW, in the US now, many stores ask you to join their "membership" program so you can get discounts or other rewards. Every time you make a purchase or look at their web sites, they are combining that with the personal information you have to give them to become a "member". You don't have to use social media to be tracked.

One of my favorite marketing tools, besides free music. You can track everything from loyalty rewards info. I've been marketing everything under the sun via every means possible for a few decades now. It's incredible what information is readily bought and sold for BIG money. Where I used to buy and sell contact info for about $1 per contact, I now collect, trade, buy and sell info that offers so much more and for upward of $10 per name. Completely legal, completely above board and only ever used for forthright purposes, but who knows what happens after that. I spend $35K on a bunch of contact info, mine the life out of it and resell it, with updated info. The next guy does the same and resells it etc. That's why Do Not Call lists really don't work, unless being bought through national directories by regulated marketing companies, where it is flagged as it is passed on.

What starts out as an old number with a contact name of someone that is now dead, in just a few short weeks it can become valuable corporate information, including annual sales figures, budgets, COE cell phone numbers etc. WEEKS, not years, is all it takes. A $1 phone number can be worth $50+ in no time. I've seen companies pay upward of $200 per web lead they get, from the right company with the right info. Telemarketers start filter out out dead people, closed businesses and NIS. The next company has an inside sales department that upgrades that basic data to include owners and managers, decision makers etc. The outside sales team at the next company upgrades the info to include financial data, C level employees etc. Eventually there's enough contact info available for it to be worth a few hundred bucks per contact to the right company.

And that's just a simple database, that could start with numbers collected at a trade show give away where people complete basic info on an entry form or a simple, free call list found online.

I would be curious to learn more about the databases you buy and sell.

It's no big secret though, I was doing it in the 80's and 90's too. I bought and sold numbers before computing became mainstream,when sales offices worked from telephone books and business directories. It's no big secret, it's just marketing 101.

List start out rough and incomplete, they are great for call centres with auto-dialers. Once the NIS #'s are weeded out, the list is good for an inside sales team, but still has incomplete data, old employee names etc. After a good inside sales team has updated it, it's useful for B2B sales to upper management. Once THAT list is primed and tweaked it's good for C-Level sales and marketing needs. The data becomes more accurate and complete, the price goes up each time until it's an expensive and valued data collection.

How would one learn about this? I'd like to do more research in this area.

A few marketing seminars I've spoken at had other speakers who touched on it but really it's just one of those things I learned over time, hands on. I'm sorry there isn't a book, course or seminar I can point you to, but I think it's been one of those things that is kept quiet. You can buy lists from all kinds of companies, there are tons of them, but as to the transformation of numbers into valued records, for me anyway, it just came from working in the industry and having people I bought and sold from, now I have a fair network of contacts where we share info among us based on value to the buyer.
Sorry, I don't mean to talk sideways like a politician but really, it started when I managed a large call centre. We'd buy THOUSDANDS of numbers, literally 40 thousand + every few weeks to a month. When our lists were worn out, I would sell them to another contact in a similar business but he also had a standard inside sales team for his day to day business. I then got in touch with one of HIS contacts when I was looking for a highly detailed list of B2B calls for an IT services campaign and B2B telephone system sales (when unified messaging and IP phones were new). From there it just turned into a network, we'd meet for beers etc as we all worked locally and then it branched out into US and foreign lists.

If there was a beginning and end I could point you to I would gladly do so but it's just one of those things I learned over time. I'm sure some idiot wrote a book, usually someone who didn't succeed but had the idea.

Presumably if you gave the cashier a random answer they would be none the wiser. An obvious answer is "I can't remember" if you really want to avoid the issue. Paying with cash avoids the credit card link, and loyalty schemes are optional.

Of course if you're interested in playing the game right back at them only use your loyalty card when buying specific things, especially if they are things for other people. Before I got bored of playing games with corporate databases I had a loyalty card that would have shown a persona who only ever paid cash and who drank the finest malt whisky but ate the cheapest snacks money could buy.

I wonder if we are the initial stages of change. I wonder if this time period like starting a simulation.

You can not judge how things will settle down. You have to throw away an initial
results until a sufficient number of transactions have been completed.

In this case we can not really know how age, and openness are impacting the
perception of on-line reputation. When generation Y members get
to the age of 65+, then will we really be able to learn something about these
factors. The current results probably say more about a culture in the
process of disruption/change than about an individual's perception of privacy..

I agree on that - too bad this generation has not seen fit to err on the side of caution. However, in a way, a small town where everybody knows everyone else's business is a similar environment - the only problem is that in a small town, everyone gets to see who is walking into town, and observe the newcomer for trustworthiness. With the new privacy reality, wolves can sneak around in stealth mode and bypass this trust examination - so the small town argument for more open privacy fails in my estimation.

Would it be better to control your personal information or have someone else?

I relate an idea one of my clients came up with. This person is getting on the NIST public recommendation committee so I take it seriously.

About software that tracks you through your use of social media:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/10/software-tracks-social-media-defence?CMP=twt_gu

This paragraph was telling:

"But the Massachusetts-based company has acknowledged the technology was shared with US government and industry as part of a joint research and development effort, in 2010, to help build a national security system capable of analysing "trillions of entities" from cyberspace."

Maybe older people don't have to delete unwanted comments about themselves or remove photo tags as much because they don't have to. Did this study also look at *how much* each of those age groups puts out there? Maybe the more mature users think more before they post and don't have friends that post pictures of them all at wild parties.

The fact that they were unaware of privacy policy changes is a big deal. I have done a great deal of research on how social media networks and other sites inform its members of changes to security and privacy policy. In more cases than not it is some blurb after the fourth drill down on their website. Facebook sending out the email was far from the norm. Yet, most did not know about the Facebook vote or recognize the importance.

that is about all anyone can see of my personal identity on FaceBook. I doubt it gives out much - especially since I look nothing like that now.

Facebook facial recognition software is quite spooky. A friend was recognized in a group photo of about 50 people. He then turned off tagging.

I'm a real fan of using that to authenticate - it seems that some of the developers of that technology have it down pat. I'm not sure how worried I am about it as it harks back to my old "small town" argument. However - the people/organizations that may abuse said technology are the worry - we will never see them or realize their impact until it's too late. Those forces are not assessed by my small town occupants, so we never get to look at their trustworthiness.

...that many of the seniors, less familiar with computers (to start with) and all that 'social media' entails, will ask their kids, 'What's this all about?' And the kids reply, 'Don't worry, it's nothing that involves you and you can ignore it.'

And to many of the millennials there is a separation of privacy related to social media and apps (not to worry - not even on the radar) and privacy as related to employers and the government (no, I'm not going to tell them ANYTHING! That's violating my privacy!!)

"It is almost assured what is released to the Internet is public knowledge forever. Why does this scare parents and older adults, but not Millennials?"

When you have 3,000 'friends,' and you spend your day releasing every aspect of your life to them .. it's back to that 'social media is different' and everything is ok. It's a learned behavior driven by peer pressure and mass marketing.

Remember that parents and older adults were brought up with (taught) the concept that everyone including themselves had a right to privacy and it's something that was to be respected. Now, millennial parents rush to sign up their 3-day old child with a Twitter account so that child will '...have an Internet presence as soon as possible.' The tweets must be fascinating, as penned by Dad: I slept. I ate. I pooped. I cried.

Interesting data, but I agree that older people use the internet less and for different purposes, so it might be less necessary for some of them to worry about privacy.

"of the 700,000 who did vote, 88 percent cast their vote against the new changes" "so Facebook rescinded the ability to vote."

Facebook members have always had the ability to vote on any policy change. Facebook wanted to remove that ability from the users as it was not being used by the members. In order to do that, Facebook had to take a vote. The 700000 who voted did not make the required quorum, so Facebook removed the member's ability to vote on policy changes.

Those millions who chose to not exercise the ability to vote indicated that the majority of the membership isn't interested in influencing FB's management.

I found of those who I asked, most older adults did not know what I was talking about. I then explained and most said they would have voted to keep the ability to vote. I did not go into if they missed the email, did not receive it, or they chose to ignore it.

When I tried to share the news, FaceBook blocked my public share. I don't think they really wanted anyone to really know what was going on, despite the fact that I did receive an email about the event. I had to post outside news information to get it on my timeline.

I was pretty sure that a majority of members would not participate, and that I was probably wasting my time, but I did it anyway. I was pretty sure Zuckerberg was relying on mass apathy to win the day for him.

Bah-zinga!

Also, Facebook has in the past mentioned every time there was a vote the turnout was too low to meet the quorum.

at that news, the way they handled it - after all they sure didn't "advertise" it, like they advertise their products. They would probably view that as self induced financial suicide. I disagree with them on that, but you can't fight a revenue policy wonk, especially in front of the board of directors, or any other stake holder, for that matter.

I know of organizations that never gave members a voting choice, or notified them of changes other than an obscure page on their website. I am not a Facebook fan, just was surprised that they communicate with members better than most.

As you have stated, Michael, the definition of privacy is important for understanding your questions.

What exactly is meant by "being more aware of how to control their online reputations"?
More aware in what sense? Being able to add and delete comments on social media pages?
What is an "online reputation"? Is it the ability of "others" to form opinions about the exposed person? Or is it more?

How might an online reputation affect a young person directly and indirectly? How might that reputation affect the same person some years later?
Do young people have enough life experience to be aware of major and minor consequences (short-term and long-term) of an acquired online reputation?

In my opinion, the older we get, and therefore the more experience we acquire, the more possibilities we are able to imagine regarding the nice or nefarious uses of information, especially deeply personal information.

The Internet social networks are just a small part of the information that is collected, as many have said or alluded to in this discussion. I'm a little nervous about that.

...the fad of "generational differences" is the worst kind of pseudoscience. To say it is poorly reseached is to imply it is researched at all. It relies on accepting the sorts of pop-culture stereotypes normally found in Parade magazine, and making sweeping assertions based on anecdotes and stereotypes.

Here's a typical example: "...not only do members of Generation Y look different, with their body piercings, tattoos, and electronic decorations, they behave and think differently as well." Really? All of them? Most of them? What percentage? Is there a difference if you only have piercings and "electronic decorations," and didn't go for a tattoo? What about those that have none of these? (Do the thinking and behaviors rub off onto them?) These are just a few examples of the kind of questions that actual researchers would ask, and them from there begin to draw conclusions.

The "generational differences" field does the opposite - it begins with the assumption that the premise is correct, and interprets anecdotes and polls to support it.

It makes tenuous connections for which there is little evidentiary support. I read one typical example which purported that the generation who watched "Damien" at the movies learned to distrust children, while the generation that saw "Look Who's Talking" were supposed to have a strong affinity for children. Again, what percentage saw these movies? What were their attitudes before seeing the movie? How many reported a change in attitude afterward? What about those who didn't see the movie - what are their attitudes? (Does it just rub off?) If the premise even made enough sense to bother researching - which it doesn't - where's the actual research leading to such conclusions? Across the field, it largely does not exist.

To further illustrate the point, consider the "boomers": Which set of "generational" values characterizes the "boomers": protesting racial discrimination at lunch counters, or beating up the protesters? Are Democrats or Tea Partiers the real "boomers"? Bill Clinton or George Bush? Barak Obama or John Boehner?

Yet, read the stereotypes applied to boomers by a writer in this "field": extremely hard working; motivated by position, perks and prestige; relish long work weeks; define themselves by professional accomplishment; workaholic generation; confident, independent, and self-reliant; will not hesitate to challenge established practices; goal-oriented; dedicated and career-focused; equate work and position with self-worth; clever, resourceful and strive to win; believe in hierarchal structure and "rankism;" hard time adjusting to workplace flexibility trends; fault younger generations for working remotely. This may be a valid description of some individuals in any generation - but an accurate characterization of an entire generation, and one on which we should base HR practices in the workplace?

Five minutes of reflective thought on descriptions such as these shows the shallowness and valuelessness of this "field." An actual and more accurate study might look at how, DESPITE shared generational experience, people have quite different and often opposing values in many areas of life, because there are so many other factors that play a much more important role in determining those than the accident of the time in which you are born.

I know this silliness is very much in vogue, but it is without foundation. The idea that HR departments are going to make any personnel management decisions based on these stereotypes is disturbing. The pretense to representing important insights for managing the "multi-generational work place" serves only to give the appearance of legitimacy to prejudices and pigeon-holing. It is astrology without the stars. One day, it will join phrenology and palmistry on that long list of obvious nonsense that even "thinking" human beings swallow without a critical second thought.

In the scheme of things, where would you place the Pew report?

The Pew report, and the poll from which they interpreted responses, is a textbook example of what I'm saying. The executive summary opens with a typical statement: "Generations, like people, have personalities, and Millennials...have begun to forge theirs: confident, self-expressive, liberal, upbeat and open to change.

The idea that generations have a single identifiable personality is an assertion, nothing more. The notion that millennials are "confident, self-expressive, liberal, upbeat and open to change" is sweepingly broad, vague, and even as shorthand, at best describes only a certain demographic of the generation.

What is more, when one reads the statistics offered in the body of the summary about "millennials," it's apparent with every example that there are large percentages (sometimes the majority) whose responses don't fit the stereotype presented at the beginning of the report summary, or the stereotypes and conclusions being presented in the paragraphs. Nevertheless, those conclusions are drawn.

For example, the summary says that 40% have a tattoo. Why isn't the 60% who don't have a tattoo identified as setting the generation's "personality"? Nearly 25% have a piercing somewhere besides the earlobe. In other words, 75% do not. This type of analysis is repeated again and again not just in the summary: it's fair to say this is typical of the approach used throughout this field. The claim that attributes like these define the generation is mainly a result of interpreting the data to fit the premise and expected conclusions. It certainly doesn't come from the numbers!

The report summary later defines the generational cohorts, in case readers are not familiar with them. Here is one example: "Xers are often depicted as savvy, entrepreneurial loners." That is the entirety of the description. I'm not sure what the slang "savvy" is supposed to indicate, but it comes as news to me (and likely to them) that all or even most Xers are entrepreneurial loners.

The summary claims that the name "Silent generation" makes for "a nice contrast with the noisy ways of the anti-establishment Boomers." In reality, the anti-establishment boomers were always a minority of that generation. Much of the generation disagreed with the anti-establishment folks, and now make up a significant part of the Republican/Tea party that stands in open opposition to the very liberal values they are supposed - as generational cohorts - to share.

It is arguable that many of the behaviors being labeled generational attributes of the Millennials (and Gen-Xers before that) have more to do with age, maturity, and level of family/social obligation at this time of life. Millennials have tattoos and piercings. Among the Boomers, many wore jeans, sandals, and let their hair grow long. In modern societies, many young people follow the various pop trends of the day. That some Millennials also do this is hardly something that distinguishes the generation. They're acting like kids.

Many of the attitudes that younger people have with regard to work ethic, commitment, professional achievement, self-image, etc., are common among modern young people of any generation. What they self-report as their attitudes and values now are likely to change as they get older, get more settled in a career or job path, get married and have family responsibilities, and so forth. Again, the evidence, such as it is, doesn't necessarily or even logically lead to the conclusion that the attitudes attributed are distinctive traits of the Millennial generation, especially given that the statistics over and over again show that significant percentages of the cohorts - sometimes the majority - don't fit the generation's supposed personality. Again, conclusion drives interpretation.

(The report summary says, "When it comes to each of these traits - work ethic, moral values, respect for others - young adults agree that older adults have the better of it." Duh. That's part of what comes with maturity, at least for people who mature! A generational characteristic of Millennials? The data certainly doesn't lead inexorably - or even strongly - to that conclusion.)

The statistics themselves are the result of a 14-question "scientific" telephone poll with some follow-up questions added. The poll is a good example of how the questions (or more accurately, the limited available answers) are led by the assumptions and the expected conclusions. In addition, a 14-question self-reporting poll limited to two or three pre-selected answers is not research, and especially not scientific research.

These are just a few examples of the issues I have with this field. It assumes that its stereotypes are valid, and so interprets the data in a manner that re-enforces them. The premise drives the interpretation of the data, and always has in this field. Other interpretations of that data are easily made, and when additional data is added to provide a fuller picture, the weakness of the generational interpretations becomes all the more clear. As I said in my previous post - one can more accurately interpret the information put forth by the generational advocates to instead say that DESPITE shared generational experiences, people tend to very diverse work ethics, political and moral values, etc., because any number of other factors are more important players in developing those values and attitudes than can be attributed to the year a person is born.

I am not saying that when one is born has no influence on these things. I am saying that the research and interpretations put forth by the generational advocates are weak, often unsupportable and easily contradicted, and results mainly in poorly-defined stereotypes that elevate a certain pop-culture demographic to the role of defining a generation. I'm saying that questionable interpretations of weak data leads to bad analysis and invalid conclusions.

So, why does it bother me so much? One problem with this is that the stereotypes are insulting. I was introduced to this field when I started teaching as an adjunct professor, and was required to attend a generational training class. Several attendees were personally angered and insulted by the stereotypes being applied to them particularly since at that time, Gen-Xers were being characterized as selfish and money-grubbing. (Now they are "entrepreneurial loners," which is a nicer way of saying the same thing.) Subsequent sessions of this training that I attended (in other work situations) have had the same outcome of serving to insult the participants who didn't care for how they were being characterized. (For example, just think of how loaded the characterization of "liberal" is for about half the American population, and you can see just one of many reasons why many boomers and millennials might be offended).

Even more important, however, is that corporate HR departments and other entities are developing personnel policies and conducting training based on weak, uncertain, poorly researched assertions about how to deal in the workplace with people, depending on which cohort stereotype they are said to belong to. Here are some typical suggestions for dealing with Millennials in the workplace:

"Listen to the millennial employee. Your millennial employees are used to loving parents who have scheduled their lives around the activities and events of their children. These young adults have ideas and opinions, and don't take kindly to having their thoughts ignored. After all, they had the best listening, most child-centric audience in history." (How does this description square with the high divorce rate that is supposed to characterize the Millennials family experience?) Is this type of upbringing such a universal experience (and Millennials so clearly spoiled) that they are going to act like petulant children unless catered to? Is this sound advice for an HR department to dispense to department managers?

"Millennial employees are up for a challenge and change. Boring is bad. They seek ever-changing tasks within their work. Whats happening next is their mantra. Dont bore them, ignore them, or trivialize their contribution." Right. All millennials feel this way, since all millennials by virtue of their upbringing feel entitled to expect more than day-to-day repetitive boredom in their professional lives - and they want it right now!. Of course, many - even possibly most - jobs dont have the luxury of ever-changing tasks, particularly those avaiable to teenagers and young adults. Perhaps the advice to those firms is that they just shouldnt hire Millennials.

"Millennial employees are multi-taskers on a scale youve never seen before. Multiple tasks don't phase them. Talk on the phone while doing email and answering multiple instant messages yes! This is a way of life. In fact, without many different tasks and goals to pursue within the week, the millennials will likely experience boredom." Actual studies have shown that successful multi-tasking is a myth, and that multi-tasking tends to less satisfactory results across all the tasks involved because the human mind doesn't work well that way. Some of the kids polled may self-report that multi-tasking is a way of life for them, but the reality is that as human beings, they are no better at it than anyone else.

"[Millennials] work hard, but they are not into the sixty hour work weeks defined by the Baby Boomers." I guess I should be ashamed that as a boomer and a professional, I'm not familiar with the 60-hour work week. Some boomers may work that long, but a defining characteristic of a generation? Nonsense on the face of it. Many service jobs, particularly in big box chains, grocery stores, etc., don't allow employees to work even enough part-time hours to qualify for partial benefits, much less an additional half-week every week at time and a half. Sixty hour weeks for hourly workers? Not typically. You have to be a salaried professional and at a certain level in your career before the 60-hour week becomes any sort of norm. As I said - add data, and the stereotypes, already weak, start to fall apart completely.

"Home, family, spending time with the children and families, are priorities [for millennials]. Dont lose sight of this. Balance and multiple activities are important to these millennial employees. Ignore this to your peril." As a boomer, I guess these things have been deeply researched and shown not to be important to me, so the HR department doesnt need to worry about me on that score. I apparently want to work a 60 hour week, and I get my knickers in a twist when 20-somethings dont want to do the same. (The report summary, by the way, says that 17% of boomers identified work ethic as one of the top five attributes that make our generation unique. Is it really that central to the Boomer identity?)

If there is anything of value to be found in this field, it needs to take a serious look at its assumptions, premises, research methods, interpretations and analysis, and conclusions. Right now, however widely accepted, it's a house of cards.

I see where you are coming from and your points are hard to argue. I will have to go back and reread the report with a new set of eyes.

I know people in generation Y who post every detail of their lives on facebook. But I also see the same behaviour from some people in the older and younger generations. And I know people in generation Y, myself included, who avoid facebook or are extremely careful about what they post on it and who sees it. All that is anecdotal of course but the only statistics I see here show generation Y values their privacy more.

You bring up the dichotomy that I am finding. There is a distinct difference in defining privacy between generations. It is almost as if Gen-Y is more concerned about privacy because they post more about themselves. I know that sounds odd, but it is the only way I can explain what I am finding in my research.

Andrew, you may find this article interesting:

http://nymag.com/news/features/27341/

If you have the time, I would love to learn what you thought about it.

Wow! I read the article, Michael. I said wow because I'm significantly older than the folks in that article, and I am a very "private" person. I do not easily share opinions, not even firmly-held opinions. Even writing here at TechRepublic is a bit "way out in the open" for me.

I do see the viewpoint of young people who never knew the limited and private life before computers and even before television. For me, though, I am still not comfortable with sharing personal thoughts with people that I do not know well. I do share from time to time, but not often with much comfort, emotionally.

To a great extent, I admire the ability to be exposed without being uncomfortable. But that is easier for me to describe than to do.

Your article on privacy has been significantly expanded in this conversation list. It is interesting, but as before (for me), a bit uncomfortable.

Thanks for starting this.

Imho the more people realise how powerfull computers have become and how good the programs are in gathering informatio (e.g. Facebook and Google) the more carefull they become in placing privacy sensitive data on the net. The younger ppl have grown up used to the idea of the omnipresent internet, the older ppl (like me) have seen computers grow more and more powerfull each year. (Moore's law)
And perhaps in this forum we have more knowledge about the power of computers, databases and data mining than the average person. Which makes us realise all the more the (possible) impact of sharing personal information in the internet.

I've often thought about joining up to something like twitface just as a means of keeping in contact with friends scattered throughout the world. Then I look at my wife's feed and see that probably 80% of it is just drivel, 15% of it is endless "funny" pictures (most of which aren't all that funny) and 5% of it is interesting news that I'd want to see. So now my approach to online privacy is that I don't have a twitface account at all.

From what anecdotal evidence I have (which is limited, and as we all know anecdotes aren't the same as data) it seems the uploading of enough personal data to cause unexpected problems isn't just an issue with younger people. A lady whose blog I follow posted one snippet of information which struck me as odd, and from that and other things she'd posted I was able to determine her real name, her husband's name, and her home address within 5 minutes on Google. As the article says the information is out there and even if it is deleted will still live on in Google caches etc.

So between the endless drivel and the way a single ill-considered comment could broadcast to the world where I live (and equally broadcast to the world that I'm not home), it's easier just to avoid it.

As for most of the content I'm "missing out" on, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, "never in the history of human communication have so many people with so little to say said so much".

I don't believe the Millenials care less about their security, its more about the knowledge and time to investigate the products and how to turn off or on the privacy rules they want to apply to the product.

It doesn't help when all vendors of social media sites use different terminology or even use the same terminology to mean different things, and hide the configuration menu(s) from the user. This is true for Web Browsers as well and the help files are vague at best if not downright confusing and often written in legalese.

Both are good points, ReadingR. I would have to agree with your assessment.

I feel the general perception of a laissez-faire attitude about Gen-Y online reputations (and so much more) is simply the disconnect between the youth and the mature. The most visible examples of young adults (from any time setting) are the rebels and hell raisers. Obviously they get most of the focus from the elder moral majority. Even the Amish practice of Rumspringa is an example. Many (but not all) 18+ legally adult individuals go hog wild, for a while, and then they finally settle down.

I've seen my nieces and nephews photos of stupid behavior on FB go from zero, then peak at an obnoxious level, and then decline and finally disappear. There are two explanations:

1. The young adults settled down - It seems like finding a mate was the beginning of the decline. Having a child was the end of the photos of stupid behavior. Obviously a bad experience (like being stalked) can also cause a sudden change in behavior.

2. And for young adults still going hog wild - The FB security options have evolved, allowing these young adults to finely tune their privacy settings to share their Rumspringa exploits with their friends while hiding it from their elders. The young adults scored higher in the study than the old farts because of a need for this concealment behavior. Later, after they settle down, they will need to hide less and will need to fine tune the FB security options less often.

So how is all this different than the a laissez-faire attitude about reputations when "sexual freedom" and the "promiscuity" become all the rage in the 18+ legally adult individuals from an earlier time setting? Easy - the young adult's behavior was essentially the same, they went hog wild (for a time), but there was no FB to blame and no need to write rhetorical online articles.

I do disagree with rhetorical online articles though. I have received numerous emails saying the piece was helpful and started a dialogue. Also, the article lead to the comments, and I have learned a great deal from those.

WHat they do and post as youths will haunt them for many MANY years to come. Just because someone finally grows up and becomes more aware of the ramifications of posting such info, the info is still there and employers will look for anything they can and rate their opportunity based on what I seen online. Fair or not, it's done by most employers these days.

Information that they remove from THEIR Facebook page can still be widely available via the hoards who share it on their page too and don't delete it. That information, even though locked down by it's originator, can be picked up and shared freely by classmates etc. who may not have the same sense of security.

Facebook also allows for face tagging. If someone decided to tag Grant Smith on his photo and share it with others, then Grant Smith doing whatever he shouldn't be doing in the photo, is now public.

Children and teens often don't have any sense of privacy or an undertsnading of what comes back to haunt them. They are free spirits and have the Don't Care attitude. When they turn 23 and realize they can't even get a job at MacDonalds, because of some old photo shows them smoking weed and flashing their boobs in public, they live to regret earlier decisions.

As to your laissez-faire attitude comment. You are very right, I had a HELL of a lot of fun too, and had a strict rule about people taking photos at parties, of course long before camera phones or digital pictures. People weren't quite as snap happy when they had to pay $25 to develop a roll of film.

Back then, your only regret was if you got someone pregnant (or got pregnant yourself) or caught a dose of something nasty and had to go to the doc for penicillin.

That's far from the case today. Teen activities are public and broadcast to the point of no recovery. What they do today, WILL come back and bite them tomorrow and being young and stupid isn't much of an excuse for most employers anymore. there are plenty of people who are young and NOT out broadcasting their antics to choose from.

And that was before there was a Face Book or Twitter.

Just how much worse is it going to be when the Face Book Generation Grow Up and try to become part of the Establishment?

Of course most will be ruled out from Political Office before they even start. So maybe it's not so bad.

Col

There will be so many people in this position that society will adjust to accommodate the critical mass. Those with published and published embarrassing pasts will get a pass because so many others have similar pasts.

When I was in school, career options for people with visible tattoos was pretty much limited to the docks or record stores. Today, you can find them everywhere in corporate America.

Want another good example? Bill Clinton's Presidential campaign nearly got derailed over allegations of smoking pot just once, prompting his silly "I didn't inhale" response. Nearly 20 years later, Barack Obama openly commented on his "choom gang" past, and nobody seemed to care.

I agree and I was always one who figured 'everyone else did it too'. but i was wrong. turns out that everyone I thought was cool did this or that but the nerds, as they were called back then in a derogatory way, actually ended up becoming today's IT boomer and have companies that would never entertain hiring someone that wasn't squeaky clean..

Same thing with today's youth.
My son: No facebook, not professional enough for him. No parties, he grew out of it, I didn't. He's had no issues following his professional career path.
My nephew: Facebook photos everywhere, all his friends have copies of his antics etc. Very skilled and trained as a chef in a well established, high end restaurant but loses jobs due to his past history that keeps coming up.
My niece: Very studious, has Facebook page strictly to display her professional efforts (she's a semi accredited fashion designer now planning a move to UK for her career). She has people flocking to her with offers because she looks squeaky clean, despite her fun life outside of work.

So yes, FACEBOOK makes a hell of a lot of difference today's youth when it comes to seeking jobs, gaining the trust and respect of peers and coworkers etc.

My son, my nephew and my nice are all skilled, trained, driven and have had similar fun antics at high school parties etc. However it is only the one who has posted such info on Facebook that has issues with work. He was all lined up for a job with a major local hotel (my brother, his dad, has SERIOUS connections) but he was told flat out, he couldn't hire someone with such a public profile.

Even if he deleted all his party pics and started up a professional looking page, you could still search for his name and find the same pics on his friend's pages, with his name tagging him.

People don't seem to understand, it' snot what YOU do anymore, it's that ANYONE has access ot ANYTHING you post and they will repost it, whether in fun or in malice, and can destroy your future prospects.

When my parents were 16, they were adults. Dad was in trade school and preparing for AirForce duty, mom was a new mother (my older sister) and ran the household outside of working.

When I was 16 it was party time, people got going at 17-18 years old.

Now kids are treated like kids until they are well into their 20's. They don't learn to grow up early and now it is often too late as they have an indelible trail of all their antics.

Not too many 16 year old, reliable, trustworthy and hardworking kids out there raising families these days. I'm not saying they don't exist, in fact those that do will succeed in a crowd of children that never grow up and post it online for the world to see.

I was always taught to think of the future before acting on the present, I never did but I sure as hell should have! I admit I got SO lucky in that the field I work in doesn't care about my past, it has no bearing on my skill set as not too many others share the same. Not that I have a superior skill set to anyone but just that it is a very broad and unique mix of skills.

Kids today are simply SOL

Everyone here has been (or is still) young. We all made mistakes and most of us wised up and made a (hopfully) good career despite past indulgences. If I get all the comment correctly, companies only look at what their applicants did wrong (to their eyes) and not how they improved themselves....
A little short sighted I think, but very real.

They just need to look at what has been done and that places the applicant on a Do Not Employ List.

After all if the person in question was a Doctor who played up like a Second Hand Lawn Mower and was totally open about this just how many Patients do you think would trust their lives to this person?

Only the people who directly knew them would be interested as they would know the way that this person has changed but Joe Public looking at someone breaking into houses and stealing things, Drugged to the Eyeballs on whatever and generally speaking a Total Miscreant would put the majority of people off and they wouldn't have sufficient patients to continue to survive.

Of course they would also get a mass of Junkies who wanted to get Hyped Up on Medical Drugs as they are cheaper on Prescription than the ones available on the street. Over all hardly the group you want to appeal to.

Col

Tattoos are cool and hip, to some. Most of the younger employers have them too. When I was younger, and I assume for you also, tattoos were for bikers or mechanics. Girls didn't have them unless they were hookers in training, today women have them because they are cute and trendy (until you start to sag and wish you never dumb enough to let someone tattoo you).

As for weed and presidents, the media and state politicians have made it so mainstream that it isn't seen as the gateway to hell anymore, but I think that's a result of education more than ignorant acceptance. Remember past monarchs were also cannabis users, it wasn't until the US made it illegal and media jumped all over it with smear campaigns about losing your mind and killing people, that it was opposed to begin with.

Now people are waking up and realizing it's not the end of life to smoke weed for recreation and within reason. In fact, the legal drug Alcohol kills people every day, ruins families, creates crime etc. Weed can only be attributed to such issues if it is seen as a gateway drug.

Gateway drugs are only a gateway for people WITH existing problems who will constantly seek other ways to get rid of internal, mental pains and troubles. If it wasn't weed, they'd go straight to alcohol and THAT would be the gateway drug.

Teen pot use linked to later declines in IQ: http://news.yahoo.com/teen-pot-linked-later-declines-iq-192328332.html

Frankly, I don't care if other people do. But if I am choosing the "more intelligent" employees, odds are that they are the ones who didn't smoke.

I would just like to comment that perhaps the differences in the age groups is that the non gen y users are actually more careful with online postings and disclosure to begin with - hence the lack of need to monitor online reputations.

See my public FTC presentations and other writings. Not many things are part of our constitution. The founders thought privacy was integral to our rights under unwritten English law and since it was attacked did not codify it. However, lest you think that makes it lawful to breach privacy review case law and the Federal Register. There are many US laws and agency regulations in force but not often enforced for lack of manpower or interest to prosecute unless overt exposure. This will change. When the impact of MIBs and other inter-corporate info sharing undermines ability of people to land jobs or redlines them in other economic ways, the pressure to enforce and redefine privacy will be forefront.

If I understand correctly, changing the constitution requires a great deal more effort than case law,right? So privacy as alluded to in other laws is easier to alter?

Since managing privacy is too complex for most users and the users don't care the only relevant solution is automatic
You can see solutions such as MyFacePrivacy (www.myfaceprivacy.com) for automatic Facebook privacy settings and LinkAdvisor 2.0 from CallingID (www.callingid.com) that automates data privacy - before you submit your data if there is a risk you get a warning
This is the way to protect the masses!

...to the majority of Americans.

It's my prediction that our contemporary notion of "privacy" will be obsolete in the very near future, and forgotten altogether in a generation. Consider that those now under 30 have spent their most impressionable years in a world of reality TV and YouTube; where nearly all forms of public exhibitionism no matter how stupid or crude is not only tolerated, but is encouraged. Kids today tweet details of their daily lives that would have horrified our parents, and even install applications on their smartphones with the sole purpose of broadcasting in realtime their exact whereabouts and activities to anybody who cares to see.

Who is going to care about privacy when nearly everyone is already literally and purposely broadcasting every minute detail of their personal lives to the entire planet?

Do you really think that these same people are going to be that concerned that their phone, automobile or home appliances are going to be sending off nearly undecipherable strings of hexadecimal code to the IP addresses of who knows who for reasons unknown? Probably not.

I will say that if something adverse happens, they will change their minds fast and react even faster.

By the definition in this article, I'm not Gen Y, but I've found that most folks older than me, have no clue how sensitive and vulnerable their information is online. By contrast, the younger generation seems to have a bit of a better understanding of this when I ask them about it.

I think, perhaps the issue is not generational, it's an educational thing. Younger folks may be more informed on these matters than some of their elders, and conversely, some older folks may have a poor understanding and assume they understand the risks.

Few realize how valuable it is to not give out information in public. It is good that people are talking about it and making everyone aware of this importance. I for one pay cash whenever I can. That limits some form of tracking.

People who have become adults it the Facebook and mobile age simply post and use online social media more than their older peers and parents, ergo any research will be skewed towards this demographic.

I spent most of my working life working with and around Gen Y and their technology habits by interacting with a user base of 30,000 of them. Their value system about what is and isn't acceptable online has a much lower bar than older demographics, so while they might act on certain privacy issues, what they consider private (if they consider it at all) is a very small percentage of online material.

My wife and I have 3 kids in the age range you've been researching. As an IT Mgr I have a sensitivity to "privacy" much as I see in your article. The point I think that needs to be addressed is Part 2. I believe you've uncovered basic statistics that indicate this age range actually IS concerned about privacy, (my kids fall into that group, there's no question they value their privacy and control over it, just ask them). Now if I ask them to define a list (using your example above regarding access to a domain) of things within their domain they would seek to keep private their list of "valuables" would leave us (an older generation) speechless. Sexual partners or preferance would not be on that list. Who they are seeing currently or to openly have a tiff with a loved one in the arena of public opinion, that is like reality TV to them and they are will participants in the drama, they can be heard, plus it is not about being right, unless you deem having public opinion behind you as being "right". Embarrassing pictures (to parents at least) are not a big deal, however personal secrets are. In fact with my kids it was always about things where they're most emotionally vunerable. That was where they really wanted privacy. Talking about where their parents do their banking and how they got a savings account with $200 in it for their birthday, heck that makes them popular. Talking about what they have or when they will be out of town traveling (come rob my house please) raises their status amongst their peers. So to wrap it up, I see this age group as concerned about privacy as us all, it only seems like they do not because they do not value privacy in the areas we think (as an older/wiser?? generation) they should. Cheers.

It doesn't matter what you think -- marketing has already figured out who they are selling to and what they will buy and how to influence the targeted demographic of boomers and Generation Whine.

The proof of the theory is the sales.

The models seem to be quite successful, no matter what your opinion is.

What ever happened to actual real people going out to meet others in person?

No matter how much anyone knows about you from the Internet, the view is highly skewed and gives an entirely unrealistic representation of who a person really is.

Narcissism would be such a fine thing if it didn't exist.

Generation Y's are too young to assess the consequences of their 'openness' - how the internet is harvested is in its infancy. And what will be, for what and by whom - is unknown. Young Boomers protested consumerism, war and pollution - and turned out to be the biggest polluters and resource consumers themselves.
Values have changed - we now don't hold doors open for each other for the fear of it affecting our place in the line.

I don't know for certain that Millennials are more or less concerned with privacy than their elders, although from those numbers, I suspect that they're more concerned. But it does look like they may be differently concerned about it. At least, they seem to be concerned with keeping different things private.

All it takes is for a few practitioners of the ancient art of "if-it-bleeds,-it-leads" finding and propagating stories about "sexting" and the like and suddenly all of the young'uns are complete idiots in the minds of their elders. (It's not like we've never seen the biases of the "reporters" or their bosses reflected in what gets reported or how, is it?

Mind you, there are some out there who are plain stupid and just don't get it. (It has always been so. Don't tell me that none of your peers were "too stupid to live", however old you now are.) IMHO, kids who brag about having committed crimes on social media and especially those who post videos of their crime sprees should be sterilized in addition to whatever other punishment is meted out. They are, if not too stupid to live, at least too stupid to be allowed to breed.

As presented (though I suspect in reality given what I've seen of Pew), the Pew data isn't meaningful. A Millenial could truthfully answer "Yes" to the question about removing photo tagging if he or she had ever removed tagging from even one picture. Is that meaningful if someone is tagged in hundreds or thousands of pictures? Or if a really embarrasing family photo had tagging removed, but semi-nude pictures were still texted to a boyfriend.

Too, even if 44% of Millenials "Take steps to limit the amount of personal information available about them online" if those "steps" are not defined, what does it mean? That someone intentionally did not post her second mobile number? Or that obfuscated and misleading information was supplied? Big difference between the two, but both could elicit an affirmative answer.

Working at schools for the last 15+ years, I've seen a lot of these kids first-hand and by and large, I do not see the level of awareness about online privacy that I wish I did.

I think Millenials are more aware than older generations that there is almost no way to keep anything posted online private. It's the 50-somethings on my flist who keep posting "mark this status friends only so no one can see me!" or similar things, to which I normally post back news articles about sites that will share their FB posts no matter what the privacy setting is to start with, as a reality check. My Millenial friends know that if they put something out there, it's out there. The place where some, and not all of them, run into trouble is that they are not as aware of potential consequences as the older generation. We fogies have learned by experience and observation that the picture of the person vacationing in Cancun when they called in sick can mean they lose their job - and most of the news reports of this type are about Millenials, which gives the perception that as a group they have this problem. Of course, my socially savvy or tech-smarter Millenial friends pick that up from news reports and adjust their online presence accordingly. My carefree ones post all kinds of things, though, that just as attitude or opinion make me wonder if they realize there is an archive for Twitter that a future boss might see. Some manage multiple online identities for this reason or to get away from marketers - I manage separate identities for my shopping/travel and my online postings, so that I don't constantly have the data mine ad junk following me around or filling my inbox. In some ways I'm beginning to adopt the attitude of my younger friends - for a long time I haven't posted anything political or comments on articles, for instance, but recently I've begun to voice definite opinions even though they're captured in stone, because there are some things I'm old enough now to know that they'll very likely always be my opinions and I'd rather stand behind them than weasel around about it. In that way, my younger friends' attitude about it has been refreshing.

The older generation which is technically savvy comes into the online world with more experience and is more in tune with security and privacy issues than millennials. MIllenials come into the online world and have to learn the hard way about this issues. By that time, some of the damage may be done as their information has already been extracted and passed on to other social networks. This does not mean they are less concerned about privacy issues, in fact they are more concerned as they see what their previous actions have cost them.

That's what the statistics above seem to indicate. My impression is they spend more time using the technology and more time coaching each other on how to use it.

Example:
I nor my wife can access my medical information, yet there are a multitude of government bureaucrats and private entities that can. After a non-injury vehicle accident where I was rear ended at a traffic light, my auto insurance company mistakenly sent me a very thick packet that contained my medical history from pre-school up until the time of the accident. When they discovered the mistake, they approached me in an effort to have the packet returned stating that the packet was proprietary information and it belonged to the insurance company. The intra-office cover letter listed over 40 other government and private entities in the Bcc list. I do not doubt that in many cases, payment for my information was given to my insurance company in much the same way that many internet companies sell one's private information...

...but your comment is very disturbing. And I wonder why I am still a little surprised

What is with all this pandering by businesses to please the Generation Y employees, to the detriment of the business organization? An excellent illustration of this is the allowing personal devices in and being used in the workplace.

What this boils down to is philosophy, or its lack, no matter which letter of the alphabet is applied to this or subsequent generations. Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence and of mans relationship to existence. Philosophy deals with those aspects of the universe which pertain to everything that exists. The task of philosophy is to provide man with a comprehensive view of life. Does Generation-Y know this?

Over the Millennia mankind has lived in the jungles, mountains and by the sea in small groups in villages. Their lives were centered around the village square where they all gathered for company after a hard days toil to talk about how they spent that mundane day and the treasures they found while digging for roots. They would dress the same way, spin the same yarns, dance the same dances, sing the same songs and eat the same food, all in a communal atmosphere, watched over by the Chief and his witch doctor.

But mankind began to evolve. It moved from the basic means of survival to more sophisticated means of survival and advancement, which led to privac. The application of intelligence was the means to progress and that advancement. And since the source of intelligence is the individual, the product of the application of intelligence in each instant belonged to that individual. The benefits of the product may have belonged to the tribe, but the idea that created the product didnt. Now here comes the Chief who passes an edict whereby the owner of the product has to share or give up that product to the tribe without reaping any reward for his product or invention. A more benign Chief may want the producer to produce large quantities of his product and he would then distribute 90% of the production to the tribe and keep 10% (the roots of taxation and/or Socialism?).

But the right to own the product of his intelligence and effort and to keep the idea that created that product requires that the producer be protected by The Right to Ownership. He has the right to own his idea and his product and share them with others at his own behest. He can only guard his idea or ideas and his life by exercising privacy. Actually there is only one fundamental right from which all other rights are born: A mans right to his own life because Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action.

Now, lets look at Generation-Y in that context. This generation in particular uses its opposable thumbs primarily for sending out text messages at close to the speed of light. And I believe there are global competitions for this event. The big question is what really is transmitted in those text messages? Any unique ideas produced through the use of intelligence? No. Anything concerning human existence and its improvement? No. Any questions to a friend or classmate concerning homework or a math or science problem? Hell, No!

So what is truly exchanged in text messages? The latest winner on American Idol, the latest cacophony to hit the Top 40 charts, the latest in denim jeans, hair styles and fashion. The rest is just music, music, music. And why did this particular generation in such a funk? To answer that question, lets take a closer look at their parents. Did philosophy play a role in their lives? Did they discuss serious issues with their friends when they tied up the land-lines for hours? No, to both questions.

So, what this boils down to is philosophy, or the lack of it, no matter which letter of the alphabet to apply to this or subsequent generations. Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence and of mans relationship to existence. As against the special sciences, which deal only with particular aspects, philosophy deals with those aspects of the universe which pertain to everything that exists.

The task of philosophy is to provide man with a comprehensive view of life. This view serves as a base, a frame of reference, for all his actions, mental or physical, psychological or existential. This view tells him the nature of the universe with which he has to deal (metaphysics); the means by which he is to deal with it, i.e., the means of acquiring knowledge (epistemology); the standards by which he is to choose his goals and values, in regard to his own life and character (ethics)and in regard to society (politics); the means of concretizing this view is given to him by esthetics. Without philosophy mankind will continue flying blind, no matter which generation and society will be taken advantage of by degenerates in politics who do understand its power and who will use it towards their own gains.

Boy the ability to have or lack of ability to have responsibility among youth is a subject that has gone on (just my opinion) since the beginning of families. Being a grandfather now I have seen an obvious change in both attitude and maturity in middle class young adults. Outside the area involving trauma do to drug or other forms of abuse young adults are just plain smarter and more aware of national events.
The world of computers had barely starting when I was leaving high school back in 1976 My kids were involved with the beginning as I took them from dos to Windows 3.xxx. Both my daughters are now involved with careers involving computer science not attached to my own computer business. Their children (oh I just love saying my grandchildren) have been on computers since they were able to read.
Now I can honestly tell you my children are way more responsible then I was about many things including personal privacy and on line immunity. My grand kids are so mature and aware of things going on with privacy rights, our government and the general social climate of the internet today it scares the begeebies (not sure this is an acceptable word but hey?) out of me. I feel like I need to take them away to just play and be kids for a day!
I am truly undecided about whether it's a good or bad thing that our youth is so caught up in the subject of online privacy. On the one hand I appreciate them taking measures to protect their own families. On the other hand it bothers me that there is an increasing number of individuals or groups that want to use or exploit others personal information. This is not just limited to corporations or for profit if you will. I am also concerned with governments including our own continually working on eavesdropping on even the most innocent and personal conversations of anybody, anywhere and at any time.
It is good that our youth learn responsibility about protecting their own and respecting others privacy whether on line or off. Hopefully this attribute comes out of good family and social upbringing and not out of fear of being constantly spied on from both corporation and government entities. Fear is a weapon used by suppressors and can damage the freedom we all enjoy in this country today.

Both my children are millenials. Among other things I'm a data security professional, and I taught both of them as much as I know about privacy concerns, personally-identifiable information (PII), and online reputation (although I didn't use that term, exactly). My wife is an attorney, and has also provided information about online reputation and privacy concerns.

My 18-year-old daughter doesn't seem to get it; she divulges personal information all the time. My 17-year-old son, on the other hand, is quite careful about what he posts. In this small sample size, my daughter is not an "IT person", while my son is (he's taught me a few things), so that may have something to do with it.

I've not done any surveys of this behavior; however, in my small world (knowing a few hundred people) most people I know do not divulge private and/or PII online, regardless of age... but my experience shows something interesting. Teenagers are less concerned about such matters than adults, but they are more aware of doing so. Adults are more likely to divulge things because they don't realize they're divulging things, so the two may even out in the big picture.

Every example and comment we get improve our understanding. Even if it the outcome is to highlight the complexity of the issue.

As a young friend explained to me, they like Facebook and the like, and they will use it ***Regardless*** of the Privacy Statements of those companies.
I do believe your assertion that "Millennials are nave about future fallout from their openness online"...
None of us has the Crystal Ball that will enable us to see the future consequences of today's actions/choices.

You're grouping people born between 1982 and 2000: so around 12 years old to 30 years old. Would any other research suggest that these groups of people act the same or have the same concept of "online privacy".
I think you'd be closer to the mark if you changed to the poll to "reputation management". The older you get, the less likely you are to be concerned about potentially embarrassing statements or photos being posted, and maybe the opposite - I'm probably in that 61% of 30-49 year olds who believe we've "still got it"!

The info to date does not answer/explain the privacy issue. Millenials may not consider where they are or what they are doing (restaurants, gyms, etc.)of major importance. Things they want private simply are not published. Older users, if less tech savvy, may not even realize what info is public and/or what and why privacy can be limited by privacy settings at various sites and anonymous surfing.

As to what you mean by "Security becomes Big Brother?" As a huge fan of Mr. Blair, I have to ask
______________________
how to do,make money,tips and tricks,health tips

One of the things not many of us stated here is for how long data is stored. If you google someone 10 years form now, do you still get confronted with the indiscretions you posted as a youth?
Paper archives take up valuable building space, digital data much less. So we are much less inclined to clean up "old" and possible obsolete data. And thus they can be accessed much longer.
One more reason to be very carefull what you post on the Internet.

Just how many FB or Twitter users are still actually alive?

You realize that when you die there is no way for others to remove what you have posted there?

Col

I still visit a couple of friends pages that have passed away. They live on as memorials for our beloved buddies!

Even if their relatives deleted them, I imagine they would never disappear from backup over at FB.

We always view the following generations through our lens of what we understand and believe. The bigger the span in-between, the more our lens finds fault with. Is this fault what the lens finds or a distortion as we are not properly adjusting the focus? Gen Y is naturally far better at adjusting their social privacy settings but their view of privacy is different. Where the Boomer generation goes tisk, tisk, Gen Y finds no big deal since people are human and will err. Gen Y can be more forgiving and tolerant. That opens more sharing by Gen Y then the Boomers who left many things to yard-fence gossiping. Gen Y has their own thoughts and views which will continue to mature as they do. It will mature to what they understand and believe which will distort their lens as they view the generations that follow them.

Since much of this is radically different than what we are used to, we will have to wait and see.

Every generation has differences from the previous ones. Different because the growth, maturity, experiences, etc. each generation goes through has differences which is really a repeat process for each one. In my parent's generation, there were those who would not use the new TV remotes and unplugged the set each night. My generation had comics that made routines based on what we saw as a weird quirk.

Our differences begin because the world we grow up in is different. Yes there are the same issues, good and bad, etc., but still different. The acceleration of technology helps to make the differences even sharper. My generation struggled with hooking up and programming the VCR's. My kids could do that before they went to Kindergarten. Then there is each generation's rebellion against their parent's generation. We grow up and figure out they're not so dumb but the rebellion leaves its mark as different thought processes are developed along with conclusions. My generation still snickered at the 'slow' students. I've seen many in my kids generation quickly jump to their defense and had no issue with them integrated in their class.

There have been some good discussions along with those where they are trying to sound like a PHD. Some seem to miss that every older generation has wagged their finger at the following ones and saw doom on the horizon for them. Some thirty thousand years later, we're still here. The lens is always out of focus I guess.

I don't think that young adults more vigilant than older adults. Quite opposite, actually.

The explanation of numbers lies in another dimension:
the older generations less likely to do something shameful, as a result, there is no need to hide. Older gens never put bad info about themselves from the begining, thus why care about privacy settings?

Younger generations still learning the life and likely to indulge something spicy that may compromise them later on.

would not agree with your statement if you do nothing shamefull you have nothing to hide...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Appelbaum

I see two issues here.

Firstly response to requests. Facebook tends to send out a billion emails a day, someone likes a picture, email. Someone likes a comment, email. Someone likes a joke, email. Someone likes a restaurant, email.

I know these can be ignored and in most cases I do, but I do have two people where it is necessary for me to at least have glance and what's up. One is hospitalized and sometimes needs positive reinforcement, though most of the time the important messages are for pictures of cats doing cat things, how much she hates her doctor (or loves him, depending on the time of day), and the ones I hate the very most are those sickeningly sweet poems and quips that belong in a 90's chick flick, or about how horrible men are to women.

Anyhow, I get so much crapola in my free email account that I often just deleted a page or two at a time while only briefly scanning sender. If they are mainly FACEBOOK, it is select all > delete more often than not. If ANY of those Facebook originating emails were about a vote, I'd miss it too. Besides a subject line comment, there's no quick distinction, just "YUCK, a bunch of Facebook crap"...delete. It's a junk email account so it rarely includes anything REALLY important or something I really must know.


The second point was privacy. At almost 44, I'm a little older than the GenY referred to but I get the point all the same. My mother for example would not click ANYTHING without calling me to see if it's safe. I've okayed her using online banking but not responding to banking emails, etc. Anything else, she'll wait until she's asked me about it. Seeing as she doesn't really understand much beyond the absolute basics or attaching a photo to an email, she knows it can be dangerous and sits on the side of caution rather than chance it, which I think is fantastic and very wise. If you don't know, don't click 'YES'!

Myself, I am still VERY skeptical of anything related to finances, besides my online banking. I am sure I give to much security credit than deserved but for, convenience and knowledge that my bank will not hold me liable for most issues, I don' mind it.

When it comes to ANYTHING else, including TR, I am very cautious about personal info. I've had some close calls with lawsuits over comments I make publicly using my real name too, as I used to manage quite a few acts and was contracted to them, my comments could negatively impact people's views of their work, so I always had my guard up anyway.

My nephew couldn't care less, he'll use his name, he'll post his photos, he'll use his phone for anything he wants etc. The Internet is still a safe place for him, at age 19.

So, your observation is quite accurate, in my opinion. The older us old farts get, the more weary and untrustworthy we become, in many cases this is a good thing too. I think it is also coupled with LIFE EXPERIENCE.

When I was younger ANYONE was my friend. Got candy in your car mister? Great I'll jump in! (well perhaps not that far but still...depends what kind of candy we are talking about too)

Being in corporate sales, the more customers I talk to, the less I trust people and that's been going on for decades now to the point where I am weary about trusting anyone anymore. Their are so many business idiots out there, who have no business being in business, it boggles my mind, and I think that makes me skeptical and cautious to accept anyone or any website's word.

As you know very well, I am cynical and skeptical, I question everything I read here as well as the source(s) that it comes from, except you of course, I'd trust you with my life. (LOL, suuuuure I would.)

But is that such a bad thing?
Should I accept someone saying "it's secure?" even when I don't trust or haven't qualified the website or technology?
Is it that I don't know any better and it's simply fear, uncertainty and doubt?
Am I just being wise from experience?

I don't know really but if I haven't provided any info that COULD possibly harm me, then I guess mayve I err on the side of caution too.

Thanks again Mark, great article!

We older farts are becoming paranoid? (not I think)

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you

Off topic:
And in my line of business (IT admin) it's not a question of being paranoid, but am I paranoid enough...
And THAT makes me more wary of privacy issues...

I prefer to call myself paranoid instead of jaded due to being an old fart.

When I saw this in this mornings e mail I had to have a second look and well what can I say. The opening is this

New Twitter App Lets You Keep Tweeting After Death

Twitter enthusiasts need not worry about what will become of their
social network accounts after they have died. A new service promises to
continue sending out tweets on behalf of the deceased long ...

www.infopackets.com/news/internet/2013/20130225_new_twitter_app_lets_you_keep_tweeting_after_death.htm

I'm still more than a bit speechless.

Col

I wonder how many people will jump at the chance.

if you could ask for spooky messages to randomly be sent out by the account! Wow, that would be a real monument to your(my) passing!

For golfers, post scores from Sawgrass or Augusta.
For drivers, post lap times for Nürburgring or other major race courses
...

The truly morbid could have some serious fun with this!

Of my body in it's grave today?

Maybe even a Web Cam to show those interested.

NA way too morbid for me.

Col

HA!

http://www.fastcoexist.com/1681470/the-16-year-old-who-created-a-cheap-accurate-cancer-sensor-is-now-building-a-tricorder-with-?partner=newsletter

A 12 year old that I discovered who had sneaked in over a monitored Phone line over 32 thousand times and lifted the constructional plans of a Air Force fighter.

If he had not of published the constructional plans in his school newspaper he would never have been caught either. Where he was silly was in not knowing what it was that he had as he had no idea of what he had got or the Security Rules broken in getting it easily.

That was a very long time ago now and unlike the plans that he lifted anything that could identify him is still Top Secret.

That was done with a Commodore 64 when they where newish so it's been quite a while now.

Col

I would love to learn more, particularly what happened to the boy, and what he is doing now.

I had a Vic20 and I managed to hack into the local computer store and play Frogger on their system!

Now if you compare that to building a fighter plane, you'll find Frogger is a more fun...not to mention less expensive!

You didn't have a bunch of Armed FBI Officers raid your home at 2.00 AM brandishing automatic weapons.

According to the court records the Kid was accused of attempting to run away before the FBI Officers identified themselves. Hardly surprising if you ask me as I consider that Common Sense.

Col

if I saw that coming - I'd assume it was drug cartel gang members coming to rob me or commit some kind of sick revenge. I've been an outspoken critic of molly-coddling gang organizations, so that would be my first assumption, unless they were properly uniformed as officers, that is. Problem is, a lot of law enforcement organization come to the party with under cover agents that are NOT uniformed, and then wonder why their suspects react in such a way. Doh!

The FBI was in Uniform but that is pure black clothing including some sort of Face Covering and FBI in Day-glow Yellow on their backs. Apparently for some strange reason when the burst in through doors and windows they are not running backward so you can see the FBI Logo, so the sane reaction is to get the hell out of there and ask questions latter.

One of the times that being in Uniform doesn't help all that much.

Col

That's for sure, Col!!! I guess I shouldn't be laughing, because it wouldn't be funny if it happened to me!

You would find you where following me.

Col

I'd be in FRONT of you