Slashdot Mirror
US Consumers Clueless About Online Tracking
Arashtamere writes "A study on consumer perceptions about online privacy, undertaken by the Samuelson Clinic at the University of California and the Annenberg Public Policy Center, found that the average American consumer is largely unaware that every move they make online can be, and often is, tracked by online marketers and advertising networks. Those surveyed showed little knowledge on the extent to which online tracking is happening or how the information obtained can be used. More than half of those surveyed — about 55 percent — falsely assumed that a company's privacy polices prohibited it from sharing their addresses and purchases with affiliated companies. Nearly four out of 10 online shoppers falsely believed that a company's privacy policy prohibits it from using information to analyze an individuals' activities online. And a similar number assumed that an online privacy policy meant that a company they're doing business with wouldn't collect data on their online activities and combine it with other information to create a behavioral profile."
Dear online marketer,
Privacy is about more than legal compliance, it's fundamentally about user trust. Be transparent with your users about your privacy practices. If your users don't trust you, you're out of business.
Sigs cause cancer.
I am not sure which is more astonishing: That so few people have bothered to read the privacy policies of the web sites they frequent, or that there are people who think the solution is legislation.
"Preceded by itself yields falsehood" preceded by itself yields falsehood.
Does everyone think that Walmart and every other large retailer doesn't track the purchases made with the same credit/debit card? When you use a single identifiable item for so many things, it makes your behavior very easy to predict and to take advantage of. Say hello to Big Visa.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
that a massive wave of realization crosses the minds of the average slashdot reader/ editor: the average guy on the street doesn't care. some slashdot readers are shocked, shocked i tell you, to find out that a lot of people don't treat their private life with the security protocols of a swiss bank. because they simply don't care
and honestly? i side with the average guy on the street with (non)this issue. the average guy on the street looks at the data generated from his random meanderings on the web as useless, unimportant, and not a matter of privacy. and you know what?: he's right. frankly, that some database might know what i visited on eBay, then amazon.com, then netflix is not some horrible raping of my psyche. it really isn't
someone could track the wanderings of people around the supermarket too. is that information deeply personal to you? it is? so then that means you define your deeply personal identity based on what aisle you walk down in in the supermarket? pffft
then they use that information to pitch DVD titles at you, or pasta, or a hallmark card
oh my god. some database knows i bought pepto bismol. now it wants to sell me toilet paper. MY PERSONAL IDENTITY HAS BEEN HORRIBLY RAPED. I HAVE BEEN DEHUMANIZED AND DEMEANED. MY SENSE OF SELF-WORTH IS LOWERED. IT'S ORWELL'S 1984
pfffffffffft
next nonissue please
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It isn't a surprise, becuase if people understood how much is tracked and what companies like Google know about them, there would be outrage. No one should have the level of detailed information about a consumer that Google gathers. They know who you email and IM with and about what, what sites you visit, what you buy, what your interests are, where you are and with whom, your stick market interests and investments and more. Even the Soviet era KGB would envy Google data collection and audacity.
Some (GOogle) will say that the privacy policy explains all this. Humbug! First you have to follow a link to find the policy. Second the lawyers and marketeers have obfuscated what is really being done. Further, they can change the policy without notice. When they change you have to know they have changed and then go and read the new policy. How one is supposed to know when no notice is provided is a mystery.
All in all, Google is doing a lot of evil if you believe in personal privacy. They are an invasive collector of personal data and they hide the extent and nature of what they are doing. Google makes Microsoft bashful in their business practices.
That's true. But tracking *things* has different implications than tracking *people*. When tracking something that is fairly disconnected from individuals, such as vehicle mileage, it's less intrusive than tracking people by, say, the cell phone (which is tracking a thing, but feels very much like an invasion of privacy to most). When you track somthing like purchasing habits, you are in a sense monitoring behaviour, which is getting closer to tracking the person, a la 1984. But not all tracking is evil. I've been noticing an increasing number of cases where companyies' safety or productivity concerns with drivers leads to an adoption of GPS vehicle tracking in fleet vehicles. Employees first resist, then accept it as a fact of life (hey, they are company vehicles, what are you going to do?). But then something unexpected happens--company vehicle is stolen--and then gets recovered (along with the thief), in less than an hour. In such cases, no one complains about tracking, since it has benefitted the company, the employee (he can still work), and society (one less car thief to worry about). A couple interesting newscasts on such events: http://www.gpspolice.com/videos/ Oh yeah, and you gotta love that this potential "invasion of privacy" (vehicle tracking system) enables the one employee to get his [stolen] dog back. ...Smar
You're absolutely right. Pretty much all consumers are clueless. No wonder - their chief source of information about a product is advertising.
Look at how many by sugar water labeled as "Grape Drink" or "Orange Drink", thinking that there must be real juice in it, because they won't take the time to read the label, and manufacturers aren't required to state in bold letters "THIS IS NOT REAL FRUIT JUICE". Or "Best mileage in its class!" - which really means "it sucks gas, so we made a 'class' with others that suck even more for bogus comparison purposes". Or "dermatologist - recommended". Or the P4s that were, clock tick for clock tick, slower than the P3s, but would "enhance your multimedia experience."
Maybe public education should include classes in Critical Analysis of Ad Claims 101 and Weasel Word Composition.
You'd think that if someone is going to buy a car, that they would know everything a certified mechanic knew.
Or, maybe the people that you talked to when you were tech support were just using their computers for entertainment and have neither the need nor the desire to "get under the hood" of the computer.
Typically people in tech support forget that they are paid to support the person calling them, not the other way around. I understand dealing with the public can be a pain in the ass, but if you don't like it, do your profession and the public a favor and quit.
> US consumers are clueless about technology in general. If you would ask the average
> person if they know simple computer concepts such as partitioning and operating systems...
As a tech person, perhaps you think regular consumers should be able to partition their hard drives, but for most people computers and hi-tech gadgets are tools no matter how prevalent or even how important they are in our lives. They don't care how their hard drives are virtually divided for use by their OS, and why should they? I know how it works because I'm interested in technology and I chose to program computers, but I know this is not what life is about.
Perhaps it is ridiculous for people not to know what operating system they run, but again why should they care? It's a tool they use to type stuff, check email, and surf the web, and even when it doesn't work, they just want somebody to make it work again. They don't want to know anything about it, and ideally they shouldn't need to know anything about it. All they should have to know is how to make it do what they want.
Hopefully we can get software to the point that it is that simple to use. Of course you and me can continue to hack at our command lines, but I don't see a problem with people only being concerned with what they want to be concerned with, and that often does not include knowing how to partition hard drives.
Now going back to the topic and on the other hand, I definitely think people should be fully aware of who has access to information about them. This is completely different from consumers needing to know about technology.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
Pardon, but do you have any clue how the SIM card in your phone or the data stripe on your credit card are partitioned? Do you care, regardless of how important a phone or a credit card is to you? no. It's a black box. It does its job.
Does that make you any more clueless? no. Simply uninterested in the workings of a particular bit of technology. Just as you can point to things those people are disinterested in figuring out in a higher level of detail, I can find a similar number of things you would be disinterested in too.
I'm a sysadmin/coder who studies biochemistry. Chances are you can't explain how, say, a simple battery or perhaps a fuel cell works on a biochemical level. I can. So? Am I better than you? less clueless than you? What can I infer about you from this? Nothing really. Chances are I know stuff you don't, you know stuff I don't, and the users you bash know shit neither of us does.
From your wild proclamations about users you really want to feel smarter than, I can, however, infer about you quite a bit.
-
... and we are all consumers.
Now, I expected the ACLU to be bi-partisan...
...and concerned with my privacy.
Hah!
Hah! Hah!
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
[BLANK] consumers tend to be indifferent. Political apathy aside, there's a limit to how well the average person should need to understand every tool. After all, I think it's important that some people take up other interests. Some people become doctors and I don't think I should have to know brain surgery myself. I don't fix my car. I can't fly a plane. I can't keep wood for the duration of an adult movie shoot. But I don't think everyone should have to. Can we please stop with the juvenile 'I know technology so everyone should' mind-set? There's a value in variety that should not be overlooked.
Quack, quack.
And that never happens?
I think it would have done more good to ask GP whether people should learn how to use and maintain their hammers, screwdrivers, wrenches, or even guns, before being allowed to potentially do serious damage to themselves or others with them.
And with that, I'll pose that question. So, onefriedrice, should they? And, if so, why, then, should they not learn the basics of, and how to use and maintain their multi-ton killing machinnes (vehicles) or machines capable of being hijacked and used to, collectively, cost businesses and governments (read: consumers and citizens, you don't truly believe the B's and G's are conna eat that cost, do you?) billions of dollars?
That's right; botnets not only slow down one person's computer, they slow down, at the very least, an entire network segment of an ISP while they're being used for an attack. They cost that ISP money. If the user is on metered bandwidth, they cost the user money. If they are used to DDoS a government, they cost that government money in bandwidth costs; a business, the same, plus lost sales. If they are used to hack in and steal banking or credit information, they cost untold numbers of people untold amounts of money.
People need to be educated about these things because that money doesn't just appear in their pockets and that loss doesn't disappear from their accounting. The losses are passed directly onto us, citizens and consumers, through higher taxes and prices.
While we're educating, let's make sure they know which end of the gun is supposed to be facing them when they pull the trigger. For some, this will be the muzzle, for others, this will be the butt.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Backtrack a second. I'm not a "customer" until I swipe my card at the checkout line. Prior to that, I'm occupying space and am merely potential. Customers are those who purchase. Everyone else is simply unconverted potential. Step back and approach your disdain from that vantage point.
If it looks like a duck, let's call it a moose.