Slashdot Mirror


30% of Americans Aren't Ready For the Next Generation of Technology

sciencehabit writes: "Thanks to a decade of programs geared toward giving people access to the necessary technology, by 2013 some 85% of Americans were surfing the World Wide Web. But how effectively are they using it? A new survey suggests that the digital divide has been replaced by a gap in digital readiness. It found that nearly 30% of Americans either aren't digitally literate or don't trust the Internet. That subgroup tended to be less educated, poorer, and older than the average American."

191 comments

  1. We all know that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    technology is always progress, and never, ever, going backwards in any possible way.

    1. Re: We all know that... by jsepeta · · Score: 0

      or Win 8.1 update 1 (start button? not start menu? wtf Microsoft? they truly don't get it.

      or OSX Mavericks (anyone ever test mail.app before fucking up your customers' emails? and to make labels dots to the far right of files and folders is FAR less convenient than coloring the actual files and folders themselves. Just like how apple fucked up labels when they took them out of OSX, then re-added them wrongly.

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    2. Re:We all know that... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Of course it is, but it's how you use it that counts.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    3. Re: We all know that... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Don't blame apple for googles crappy IMAP hack.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    4. Re: We all know that... by TouficZaarour · · Score: 1

      Use Linux

  2. Funny by sootman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because in my circles, it's the smart people who don't trust the Internet.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    1. Re:Funny by dougmc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's a difference between blindly trusting random crap you find on the Internet and not ever using it at all.

      At least in my circles, the truly smart people fit into neither category. That said, if you must pick one or the other ... the latter is preferable.

      But that's a false dichotomy ... even better is being able and willing to find things on the Internet, but having the wisdom to tell what's crap and what might be crap (and therefore needs to be confirmed) and what's probably accurate (but keep in mind, it still might not be.)

    2. Re:Funny by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Depends on what you mean by trust... if you mean you think you should encrypt sensitive information and observe security precautions when dealing with money, personal information, etc... then that's just prudent.

      However, there are some that don't trust the internet as a medium in and of itself. And I would argue that that is a problem.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:Funny by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It reminds me of a quote from The Godfather II:

      Frank Pentangeli: Your father did business with Hyman Roth, he respected Hyman Roth... but he never *trusted* Hyman Roth!

      . . . just replace Hyman Roth with The Internet . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, It seems to me the two categories should add up to 100%.

    5. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not just about information you find. It's also about the technology itself.

      Computers these days come with browser that have default-enabled Javascript, Flash, Silverlight, Unity[1], Java, and who-knows-what-else. You can get 0wned just by clicking on a link, even an advertisement on an otherwise legitimate site.

      Some people are fluent in computers, and trust them. Other people are wary because they don't understand comptuers. But, experts are wary because they do understand computers.

      [1]Unity Web Player didn't exist back when I switched from Windows to Linux, so actually I don't know how prominent it is today.

    6. Re:Funny by vandelais · · Score: 3, Funny

      You must be new here.

      --
      Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
    7. Re:Funny by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      Because in my circles, it's the smart people who don't trust the Internet.

      I bet you read that on the internet.

    8. Re:Funny by funwithBSD · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It is more like a U shape, with Distrust on the vertical and Knowledge on the horizontal axis.

      One end does not trust the internet because they don't know what is out there,

      the other end does not trust the internet because they know what is out there.

      Those in the middle are just knowledgeable enough to be dangerous.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    9. Re:Funny by hackus · · Score: 2

      I would like to add that the people who I will describe as the old guard, who brought up the internet have a generally different point of view on the topic of advanced technology. For example, none of us use social networking, either for professional contacts, customers or even general communication.

      Ideas like Facebook, and LinkedIn are something akin to nosey email. Further more we in the old guard as it were see it for what it really is, just a way to sell your information and ripping you off, for really not so good reasons.

      Now if I could charge everyone too look at my kitty pictures on Facebook, along with my personal information, that would be different! Hell I would even give zuckerberg, NSA and god knows who else a cut.

      But they do not even do that. So why even bother.

      --
      Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    10. Re:Funny by freeze128 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's getting harder and harder to even RESPECT the internet....

    11. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is why I laugh so hard at the guy at work, who refuses to write procedures or tools to do critical tasks. "Just look it up on Google" is his answer to everything.

      It's most fun when he looks up the answer on Google, claims he has it, and I explain that he doesn't have it. He argues, and I make him scroll down to who actually *wrote* the top answer that Google provides, and show him where he misread what I wrote there.

      This.... just makes my day when it happens. It happens less often now, he's learned to check the attributions and to take my claims more seriously. But it's awfully fun.

    12. Re:Funny by peragrin · · Score: 0

      So your are the idiot still using google + stop it will you so google will back off the rest of us.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    13. Re:Funny by peragrin · · Score: 1

      I stopped trusting the internet when I first got trolled by a goatse picture. How long ago was that? 1999

      If a random person can screw you over that badly I knew that companies would stop even asking for lube.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    14. Re:Funny by CODiNE · · Score: 2

      Guess they're not prepared to buy the next thing the internet tells them to. For shame.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    15. Re:Funny by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      So your are the idiot still using google

      Given your phrasing, it's interesting that you refer to someone else as an idiot....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    16. Re:Funny by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      having the wisdom to tell what's crap and what might be crap

      Reminds me of an article I read about seagulls, both parent birds spend up to two years teaching their offspring what they can and can't eat at the local tip. Despite their efforts a significant number still die trying to eat plastic bags, batteries, bottle tops, etc.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    17. Re:Funny by Oligonicella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More fun, reading AC comments claiming to be authorities.

    18. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely! It's the dumb ones who blindly think the Internet is completely safe. And the paranoids were right, it isn't.

      Granted, some encryption mitigates some of the problems, but not all.

    19. Re:Funny by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My kids' school, they ban using Wiki for research.

      (Personally, I'd think that a perfect jumping-off point for teaching the difference between primary and secondary sources, critical reading, and source evaluation. But hey, what do I know, I'm not a teacher.)

      --
      -Styopa
    20. Re:Funny by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Because in my circles, it's the smart people who don't trust the Internet.

      Yeah, like we're going to believe that you actually use Google Plus.

    21. Re:Funny by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      If a random person can screw you over that badly I knew that companies would stop even asking for lube.

      Well, not to be pedantic, but I'm not... sure... the goatse guy really needed lube. I mean, well, he was just so dilated.

      I'm sorry. I felt it needed to be said.

    22. Re:Funny by pooh666 · · Score: 1

      This needs mod up.. This is the most important thing to learn.

    23. Re:Funny by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      However, there are some that don't trust the internet as a medium in and of itself. And I would argue that that is a problem.

      A problem for whom? If they don't mind the inconvenience of never using the Internet, that's their decision, and living without using the Internet is no less doable now than it was for the previous 5,000 generations.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    24. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's appropriate. Wiki is a steaming pile of shit filled with inaccurate, biased, Face Painting Homer protected garbage.

      I tell my students it's an automatic F if the word Wikipedia appears in their research. Hell, you can't even trust the footnotes much of the time because they are not germane to the subject matter. "This Magical Plant juice helps you lose weight without exercise..." then they cite either ANOTHER wiki article or some stupid multilevel marketing bullshit site.

    25. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, there are some that don't trust the internet as a medium in and of itself. And I would argue that that is a problem.

      Why is it a problem? Do you trust human nature in and of itself?

      The internet is no different.

      It is only a problem in the sense that we prefer group think to autonomy, groups to individuals, and "community" to freedom.

      What is the problem? Must everyone be forced on the highway, for your amusement? Everyone is here to serve you?

    26. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > living without using the Internet is no less doable now than it was for the previous 5,000 generations.

      That is untrue. The internet has either killed off or made formerly standard things much more difficult.
      For example, classified ads are a wasteland because of the internet.
      Computer Shopper magazine is dead and gone, replaced by the internet.
      You can't buy a print edition of the encyclopedia britannica anymore.
      Book stores are much harder to find.
      Music stores are much harder to find.

    27. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easy to get around it. Read something on Wiki, look at annotation, follow annotation, use that source instead...

    28. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone once in awhile I wish everyone had to have their names linked to their posts. That way it'd be easy to avoid working at the company that the asshole Anonymous Coward grandparent works at.

      But then I'd lose my /. account and be forced to log-in everywhere.

    29. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, a "primary source" is something I say.

      A "secondary source" is something someone else says.

      Not hard.

      Critical reading is when you are reading my sources.

      Poor research is when you read something I didn't give to you.

      Fuzzy logic and plagiarism is when you copy someone else's ideas who isn't me.

      Source evaluation is when you share your secrets with us.

      Lack of credibility is when you don't compromise your sources with us, so we cannot get to them.

      Not hard.

    30. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think peragrin mistyped "lube" for "glue". G and B are next to each other on the US keyboard or maybe it was an auto-correct mistake. That goatse guy really needed some closure.

    31. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Censorship is when someone we don't like promotes their truth, and censors ours.

      Why would they "ban" wipedia? No, you are a very confused little boy.

      They are merely LOOKING OUT FOR YOU. Like a Big brother.

      Just don't use that term.

    32. Re:Funny by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      failing to embrace new technologies tends to mean businesses suffer... I've seen it first hand enough times... its a mistake.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    33. Re:Funny by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My kids' school, they ban using Wiki for research.

      (Personally, I'd think that a perfect jumping-off point for teaching the difference between primary and secondary sources, critical reading, and source evaluation. But hey, what do I know, I'm not a teacher.)

      Uh, they probably ban it because it's a secondary source. You are fine at using it for a jumping off point, but that's all you can use it for - to jump off.

      You're not using wikipedia for research, you're using it for the background in order to do research.

      And it also means you don't copy and paste Wikipedia and hand it in )adding plagiarism to the all sorts of badness).

      Because you know kids would. Banning it probably is easier to describe to them, but any smart kid would just use it anyways and hide the fact that they used it by going to the original sources. *gasp* Research!

      It's the same as it was back in the old days where we were banned from using the encyclopedias. No one said we couldn't do it on our own time and then use the references in our final work...

    34. Re: Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's unfortunate but things will change again once the internet is gone.

    35. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's hilarious about this to me is that I have yet to attend a educational institution that has access to a REAL selection of primary sources. If you were to try to check the works cited on a wikipedia article as a member of the general public and not as an ivory tower acedemic then you would encounter countless confounding paywall obstacles, and probably eventually end up on #icanhazpdf, or putting ~$400 in .pdfs on mommy and daddy's credit card. Total time reading that $400 worth of Adobe Acrobat? ~45 minutes to find a single primary source worth a damn

      -The local libraries have shit for academic journal selections.
      -I've attended 3 Community Colleges, 2 High Schools, & 1 Middle school. Not a single one of them even had a JSTOR account.
      -Ebscohost was the best available on any of them, and it is virtually worthless for finding any of the credible publications you actually encounter in the real world cited by real scientists.

      As far as I can tell, Ebscohost is only good for liberal arts bullshit where you need an editorial from a blogger at reuters to cite for your WR121 persuasive essay on legalizing midget bowling. You want to read about actual science you found behind a paywall with a google search? Tough shit, get ready to drop $40 at IEEE only to discover the abstract overstated their conclusions and the full text does little to no good to provide the information you're looking for. Here's a fun challenge: try to find a phase diagram for N-Pentadecane (C15 H32 / CAS #: 629-62-9) at your local public library/community college. Good fucking luck! I had to tread pavement to the nearest 4 year research university and wander in to their chemistry reference section to find a dead-trees book because I needed a student ID to get access to their electronic databases.

      This uphill battle is essentially why Aaron Swartz hanged himself. People attributed it to the DoJ but gave the academic journal industry that he was fighting a free pass. My tax dollars pay these PhD's government stipends and NSF grants yet I have to pay some trade society an annual membership due just to read the damn .pdfs? WTF?

    36. Re:Funny by William+Baric · · Score: 1

      When I was a kid, a "research" about a subject was limited to go to the school library and finding two or three books at most, reading the part I was interested with and making a small summary. There was absolutely no critical reading and no source evaluation.

      I'm not sure how old your kids are, but critical reading and source evaluation is one of the most difficult thing to do. You can start to teach those to teens in high school, but not before. Also, I'm not sure parents would like their kids to develop critical reading and source evaluation as a skill. Most parents would not like their kids to say : "The Bible makes no sense and nothing gives authority to this book. Screw it!"

    37. Re:Funny by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      The most outrageous thing is sometimes they want to charge you $35 to download a scan of an abstract. An abstract!

    38. Re:Funny by msauve · · Score: 1
      I thought the same thing...

      nearly 30% of Americans either aren't digitally literate or don't trust the Internet.

      That should be 100%, because if you're digitally literate, you don't trust the Internet.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    39. Re:Funny by StoneCrusher · · Score: 1

      And every modern browser sandboxes the fuck out of those environments. Google and Microsoft will give you cash if you can show how running any of those technologies can get you 0wned.

      The biggest security problems at the moment are tracking from Facebook buttons and Google ads. But this is not getting "0wned", it is simply the websites you visit behaving as intended. They are the ones who happily put these features there. If you don't like the way these websites work you have some choices...
      1. Don't visit them.
      2. Install one of the many, many blockers.
      3. Disable cookies, or have them trashed on page exit.

      And the number one rule of the Internet. If you type information into a website, that company has that information, and what you clicked on.

      That company may share that information with anyone they want. Generally assume: User data goes to marketing and parent corp., clicks go to Google and Facebook, everything goes to DHS/NSA/CIA/FBI/(redacted).

      tl;dr Don't worry about the information or the technology, worry about YOUR information.

    40. Re:Funny by JCHerbsleb · · Score: 1

      Wiki is a steaming pile of shit filled with inaccurate, biased, Face Painting Homer protected garbage.

      Actually, according to Wiki, it is quite accurate! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Or, joking aside, according to CNET Wiki is more accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica! http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wik...

    41. Re:Funny by gsslay · · Score: 1

      Saying "Wiki" when you mean "Wikipedia" is like saying "internet" when you mean "slashdot".

    42. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I am an internet authority and can verify the internet is completely safe and should be trusted. The only exception is when you find something that's embarrassing to Obama in which case its obviously GOP trickery and lies. But the rest can be trusted.

      Now, please change your web browser connection settings to proxy through my data center in Utah.

      Yours truly
      the NSA

    43. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that's what's wonderful about it being a wiki- you can change it!

      Oh, you can't be bothered. Well, since you're part of the problem, screw you!

    44. Re:Funny by Wootery · · Score: 1

      And every modern browser sandboxes the fuck out of those environments.

      Right, which is why Oracle Java has never had any trouble with security...

    45. Re:Funny by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      I always thought fuzzy logic is using a continuous range of truth/false values as opposed to using binary true/false values.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    46. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're a shit teacher, is what you're getting at?

    47. Re:Funny by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Most people believe what they want to believe.
      The internet allows these people to get together and become a loud vocal group.
      So a lot of misinformation is sent from these people, causing confusion on the people who may be neutral on the topic.

      So if the person is unable to judge the quality of the information they probably don't trust the internet as it gives them so much stuff that is hard to figure out what is true.

      Then you have reports about Spying, Identity Theft and a bunch of other stuff, that is greatly over emphasized so people feel even scared of it.

      The people who know how to use the technology knows how to be "Internet Street Smart" However those who struggle are not. And get themselves into more trouble.

      The people in your circle they don't trust the internet, like how someone doesn't trust walking in the city. They know not to keep their wallet in their back pocket, dress down... However they are not so worried about a random shooter on a good block.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    48. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's those who understand the internet (at least to some depth) that don't trust it. Or at least, they don't trust the servers, services, companies, and people on the Internet. Heck, I suppose if you throw in actions of the intel agencies, you can say they don't trust the Internet itself (the network).

      I'm 'not ready' insofar as I eschew social networks as intrusive and a drain on my time and I despise overly curious websites that want more info than I care to provide for their own purposes (so I frequently lie to them or use bogus one-off email addresses). These are conscious decisions and I've been writing internet-connected applications since the early nineties.

      New technology is often driven by corporate needs as much as it is by user needs. Data collection nowadays certainly does not have the users' wellbeing in mind.

    49. Re:Funny by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      > My kids' school, they ban using Wiki for research.

      So? In my day, dead tree encyclopedias were banned for research.

      All you have there is an old rule from the dead tree era applied directly to it's online counterpart.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    50. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "He argues, and I make him scroll down to who actually *wrote* the top answer that Google provides, and show him where he misread what I wrote there."

      So your coworker is looking up the best places in your area to suck cock while at work and your biggest complaint is he doesnt just take your word for it?

    51. Re:Funny by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Not visiting those websites is not helpful advice. My wife got pwned by the New York Times, or, more precisely, one of their advertisers. Sandboxing didn't help. If Google and MS and Mozilla develop better sandboxes, malware authors will develop better tools to break out of sandboxes for shady advertisers to use.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    52. Re:Funny by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Similarly, cell phones basically destroyed pay phones, so if you have to call somebody from a public place and don't have a cell phone, you're SOL.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    53. Re:Funny by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Also, people will tend to believe the stories they're given in the absence of counter-evidence. This is a problem in ancient history, where there are limited numbers of sources: if only one author's account of an event survives, that account will tend to be believed, even if not really credible. Of course, in this case, it's a matter of too few sources, while the Internet has a tremendous number of sources and efficient filters so you don't have to read anything that disagrees with your selected viewpoint.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    54. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Respect my authoritah!

    55. Re:Funny by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Well, and take Slashdot as an example, specifically AGW discussions.

      Pro AGW posters post pro AGW posts... non-AGW mods mod them down.

      AGW skeptics post skeptical AGW posts... AGW mods mod them down.

      Posters need to decide if they are willing to take the Karma hit of posting their contribution, especially if they are in the minority view

      In the end, the filtering is imposed to bring a hegemony to the subject, rather than open discussion.
       

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
  3. The "Next Generation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We aren't even using this generation of technology properly already! All those hopes for a world transformed by ubiquitous access to the sum total of human civilization were dashed by regulation and censorship. What was supposed to bring us together has only driven us further apart.

    1. Re:The "Next Generation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We aren't even using this generation of technology properly already! All those hopes for a world transformed by ubiquitous access to the sum total of human civilization were dashed by regulation and censorship. What was supposed to bring us together has only driven us further apart.

      I know exactly what you mean. I got the Pocket Hose Ultra and still haven't figured out how to get it coiled up like on the ads.

  4. or don't trust the Internet by darkain · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And those who are extremely educated fall into the "don't trust the Internet" group quite easily. How many security exploits do we need before people stop trusting in various internet services? But not trusting it doesn't mean we stop USING it! We simply alter our actions on the internet.

    1. Re:or don't trust the Internet by Tehrasha · · Score: 2

      I don't trust the internet, and I use it 12hrs per day... 20 years of internet have made me the jaded cynic that I am today.

    2. Re:or don't trust the Internet by dublin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Only a fool "trusts the Internet" - especially Wikipedia.

      It's funny, the other day, I was hanging out with a group that included several pretty top-level IT and networking folks, including some leading CS academics. Not one of us uses internet banking, or allows access of any kind to any of our financial accounts over the net. On the rare occasions that companies force the use of the Internet, the general response is to enable access only long enough to do the job, then destroy the Inet access account (best), disable net access (2nd best), or set the password to random gibberish that even we don't know or keep a record of. This forces a long, manual process to "reenable" the acccount that cannot as easily be done by an impostor. None of us "trust" the Internet, I guess.

      That was a real eye-opener for some of the younger "Internet-savvy" group, who all of a sudden realized that maybe they were opening themselves up far more than they realized, especially in a world where every WiFi network, even with WPA2, is now as open as the one at Starbucks...

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
    3. Re:or don't trust the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Not one of us uses internet banking"

      I have sad news for you: your data is exposed whether you use it or you don't. If you've paid attention, all the big bank exploits recently have been through their back-end systems, not through desktop malware or browser exploits. Browsers have become sophisticated enough, especially Chrome, that they're no longer the low-hanging fruit.

      So unless you use a bank that somehow manages two completely different ledger and account systems, one which takes networked transactions and one which doesn't, you're only inconveniencing yourself. You should be far more worried about your server at restaurant copying your credit card number. And _please_ don't tell me that you use your debit card as a credit card. Now _that_ would be stupid, if you're trying to avoid the hassle of recouping stolen funds.

    4. Re:or don't trust the Internet by AudioEfex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Precisely.

      If you don't pay your bills on the Internet, you are a fool. Why? Because your bills are being paid online anyway, even if you are idiot enough to send a check, which is the most dangerous thing you can do with your financial info.

      You write a check, with all the info needed on it to completely wipe out your checking account (and savings, too, if you have overdraft "protection") on a piece of paper, put it in an envelope that couldn't more clearly scream "THERE IS A CHECK IN HERE" unless you literally wrote that on the outside, and it goes through many hands before getting to its destination which isn't even the company you are paying. If you look at most national account bills (credit cards, cell companies, cable providers, etc.) they all go to the same few places (usually somewhere in the middle of the country like IL) called "lock boxes" where a minimum wage worker opens your envelope, scans your check digitally, transmits the info to the respective banks, and completes the transaction electronically anyway. Oh, and they are supposed to shred it afterwards. You hope.

      The real problem is attacks on back end systems, or assault on terminals, like what happened to Target. Most of the time (almost all) fraud that happens on indivdual online accounts is by someone they know - usually a spouse or child. So if you don't trust them, or can't outwit them with passwords on your system, you have a much larger personal issue than lack of security on the Internet.

    5. Re:or don't trust the Internet by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Where were you hanging out, the paranoia ward at the local hospital? - And get off my lawn before I call my luddite attack dogs.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:or don't trust the Internet by pooh666 · · Score: 1

      Why the bloody hell does ANYONE DO ANYTHING but drink coffee at Starbucks? All of these god damn log me out in 10 min apps drive me nuts and it is all because of dumbasses at Starbucks...

    7. Re: or don't trust the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you're super paranoid, you can run two checking accounts, one with electronic funds transfers disabled. Then you pay your bills and deposit your wages to the EFT account, and then manually move money between it and the one tied to your ATM card. And of course keep the bulk of your money in investment accounts.

      It doesn't address the uber hack threat, but it address many common attack vectors.

    8. Re:or don't trust the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're talking about non-tech savvy people. They probably have a vrius or two along with spyware and three different browser toolbars on their computer. I think it would be safer for them to mail a check. Plus mailing checks helps the post office too.

      How much check fraud happens compared to online fraud?

    9. Re:or don't trust the Internet by g1powermac · · Score: 1

      I do have to add there's a few more attack venues than just at the receiving end of a check payment. There is literally no security at your mailbox, and practically nothing in the mail trucks that pick up your checks. Anyone can take the check right out of the box, and everyone knows something's in there with the little flag being up. And then there's no cameras or security in the mail trucks themselves. Besides federal law, there's nothing stopping a carrier from pocketing a check, which I think is pretty unfortunate. Your best bet if paying by check is to deposit the envelopes directly at the Post Office. There's plenty of security inside the office and processing centers that at least there's a much less chance of anything happening once inside the system.

    10. Re:or don't trust the Internet by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      The local hospital? Are you kidding? Do you know what kind of nasty stuff you can pick up at the hospital? Some of it is even anti-biotic resistant.

      You don't want to be hanging out at the hospital any more than you absolutely have to. It's much like the Internet in this regard.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    11. Re:or don't trust the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your local hospital has a paranoia ward?

  5. And this surprises... who? by Slartibartfast · · Score: 1

    I mean, really. We *know* that (most) grandmas ain't exactly surfin' like crazy. They're terrified of viruses, and all the other associated buzzwords, and were uncomfortable around new technology before that. Certainly there are exceptions -- but I'm not at all surprised to hear that the demographic mentioned isn't exactly spearheading the digital revolution.

    1. Re:And this surprises... who? by dougmc · · Score: 4, Informative

      Many "grandmas" have embraced the Internet.

      For example, this study from two years ago says that more than half of senior citizens now use it. They often don't know how to use it well, granted, but they're using it. And many of them *do* know how to use it well.

    2. Re:And this surprises... who? by fermion · · Score: 1

      Yes, most anyone over the age of 40. I know people in their mid 40s who can't figure out how to get a USB printer to work. OTOH, my mother who was born more than 20 years before the invention of the transistor had to learn to use to use a CRT terminal to look up information to help patrons, then a microcomputer, then had a computer in retirement for investments, email, and general web surfing. I think the difference is the expectation of education. If you just learn basic skills in high school, if you go to college just looking to get trained for a better job, then when new stuff comes around you aren't prepared to deal with it. There are people, however, who realize that during your high school years you can really learn general skills and processes, and in college you can use your core classes to learn to think deeply about things, and I think these people are the ones who can deal when something totally new comes along, with hardly blinking an eye. Of course some people have such skills more innately than others.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    3. Re:And this surprises... who? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      For that group it is all in the technological difference between a computer hooked to the internet that is capable of doing a positively huge number of different and varied things to an appliance that hooks to the phone.

      Forget selling them a computer and the internet, sell the a touch screen voice activated terminal with a remote tablet. Push button to call, say name, read details on screen to confirm. A terminal that can learn the users pronunciations and enunciations with some really broad fuzzy logic interpretation of instructions to cover a range of commands.

      The KISS (keep it simple stupid) range of appliances for the SS range of customers, to be brutally blunt. Not to forget people grow old, through a life of continual changes, they simply only want to deal with the exact same thing today as yesterday or a simple easy change. Voice control will be the bridge to the last 30%, give them a computer that can talk back and that can take a varied range of verbal instructions to carry out a limited range of commands, with some touch screen activity to confirm and clarify.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:And this surprises... who? by SydShamino · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Most senior citizens (those 65 or older) became senior citizens since 1995, when the web started taking off. Many became senior citizens after 2005, when it had mostly saturated middle-class households.

      It's not so much that granny embraced the internet, it's that she embraced the internet and then aged into being "granny".

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    5. Re:And this surprises... who? by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      I mean, really. We *know* that (most) grandmas ain't exactly surfin' like crazy. They're terrified of viruses, and all the other associated buzzwords, and were uncomfortable around new technology before that. Certainly there are exceptions -- but I'm not at all surprised to hear that the demographic mentioned isn't exactly spearheading the digital revolution.

      This 30% number is going to go down over time -- as these people die.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    6. Re:And this surprises... who? by dougmc · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure "grandma" is synomous with senior citizens, but I guess it's as close as we're going to get real data on.

      But either way, even if they "aged into being a senior citizen" ... there's still more of them using the Internet than not. Yes, they are often terrified of viruses and the like, and if they aren't they should be ... and I recall fixing up my mother in law's computer on a regular basis because it was riddled with crap ... but she still used it. She loved it.

      And the "riddled with crap" problem isn't restricted to senior citizens. My children's computers have similar problems, and that's why I refuse to even let them use mine and set them up with their own ...

      That said, if I had it all to do again today ... I might have set my mother in law up with a Chromebook or tablet or something instead, something that's pretty resistant to all the crap. I think it would do most of the stuff she wanted to do. My kids are digital natives and they want more than a tablet or Chromebook will provide -- but even so, that covers much of what they want too.

    7. Re:And this surprises... who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in my 20s and even I can't always get a printer working. Printing black and white with available black toner: "Error, Yellow low. Replace yellow and reprint." Fuck you printer driver developer. Fuck you for not adding in an accessible, yet hidden, debug option to disable (or just not print using yellow and instead skew the output colors) such 'errors'.

      There are some people who see new things as challenges to solve and others who get stressed out from things they don't already understand. Please understand that we needed both types of people so that our race wouldn't be wiped out by everyone trying that new, neat looking (and deadly) mushroom. Education and experiences can sway you either way, but not everyone starts at the same place. Don't think one group is lesser or lazier than the other.

  6. Divides, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lousy kids, get off my LAN.

  7. /. included ! by redelm · · Score: 1

    Who around here trusts "The Internet" ???

    Wouldn't blind trust be considered digital illiteracy?

    1. Re:/. included ! by steak · · Score: 1

      this man speaketh the truth.

    2. Re:/. included ! by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      It's only ones and zeroes, how bad can it be?

    3. Re:/. included ! by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Yeah, no shit. The first thing I told my mother when she wanted to become 'digitally literate' is to never trust the internet.

      Never trust it's telling you the truth, never trust it cares about your interests, and never trust that someone might not be out to rip you off.

      Then I'll show you how to actually get to it.

      Not trusting the internet is a damned good starting point.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:/. included ! by briancox2 · · Score: 1

      Considering that this article seems to be a precursor to "The Internet of Things" acceptability campaign, I think I agree with your sentiment the most.

      --
      We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
    5. Re:/. included ! by CheshireDragon · · Score: 1

      If you line all those ones and zeros up in the proper order they can be pretty bad...

      --
      "That's right...I said it."
  8. I tepidly disagree... by Slartibartfast · · Score: 2

    Your comment is way funnier the way you put it, but I trust the Internet as a transmission medium -- so long as I'm using solid encryption. Unfortunately, between reports of NSA backdoors in NIST encryption algorithms, and SSL bugs, "solid" has become a somewhat relative term.

    Excuse me. Time to fire up my Tor client over OpenVPN using pufferfish through an SSL tunnel.

    1. Re: I tepidly disagree... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Pff I just incognito tabs.

    2. Re:I tepidly disagree... by fisted · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I trust the Internet as a transmission medium -- so long as I'm using solid encryption.

      So you do not trust the Internet as a transmission medium.

    3. Re:I tepidly disagree... by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He trusts the internet will deliver the packets. He doesn't trust that someone else won't try and read them along the way.

    4. Re:I tepidly disagree... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Your comment is way funnier the way you put it, but I trust the Internet as a transmission medium -- so long as I'm using solid encryption.

      Isn't that true of any transmission medium?

    5. Re:I tepidly disagree... by exomondo · · Score: 2

      Yeah when TFA says nearly 30% of Americans either aren't digitally literate or don't trust the Internet I'm pretty sure that's what they meant, not whether it will deliver their packets.

    6. Re:I tepidly disagree... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      > He trusts the internet will deliver the packets.

      With the NSA impersonating facebook's servers, looks like even that minimal level of trust is misplaced.

    7. Re:I tepidly disagree... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roll you own.
      NSA relies entirely on being able to automate the decryption. It doesn't matter if a teenager with an interest in cryptography can break your encryption in five minutes, NSA doesn't have five minutes per person they snoop.
      The only time you will be fucked is if they target you specifically, but in that case they can get a warrant for wiretapping you and can enter your house to install keyloggers and whatnot so encryption won't help you much there.

    8. Re:I tepidly disagree... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Yes, roll your own encryption, because no one will care about yours, except you can't use your own encryption unless others also use it.

    9. Re:I tepidly disagree... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rolling out 'your own encryption' actually happens to be orders of magnitude less secure (at least in practice) then using a well tested, internationally accepted cryptographic algorithm that at least has withstood the scrutiny of a couple of dozen cryptanalyists. Otherwise, you may as well not even bother. At least from a security point of view.

    10. Re:I tepidly disagree... by Wootery · · Score: 1

      Isn't that true of any transmission medium?

      I vaguely remember reading about the idea of encoding a bit into exactly one photon, and the possibility of using this to create a scheme where snooping could always be detected.

      Annoyingly, I forget the details, and Google didn't turn up anything relevant looking.

  9. Wait, wait a second.... by bmo · · Score: 2

    nearly 30% of Americans either aren't digitally literate or don't trust the Internet.

    I have been out here in e-space for decades.

    You are a fool if you trust any kind of technology blindly, especially a technology that gives every moron with free access to a terminal somewhere. This goes for the POTS too.

    Because I'm sure going to trust that guy with the east-Indian accent telling me over the phone to install a remote access tool to my computer. Which actually happened to me 3 something weeks ago.

    You are digitally illiterate if you "trust the Internet."

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:Wait, wait a second.... by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Because I'm sure going to trust that guy with the east-Indian accent telling me over the phone to install a remote access tool to my computer.

      Indeed. Why go through the hassle of following the manual instructions of an Indian guy, when an American guy at NSA can install a remote access tool to my computer automatically. :P

    2. Re:Wait, wait a second.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He called my wife, too. She was on vacation elsewhere. Her Macbook was off. I asked the guy if he could tell it was on, and he said yes. Then he proceeded to tell me to open Internet Explorer. I pretended it was on, and said, it's a mac, so it doesn't have Internet Explorer, although he could probably see that. He said he could see it, but I should open IE anyway. After jerking around for a while, I finally said, "Look, I know it's a scam. Go bother someone else...or better yet, get a job that isn't a scam before you end up in jail."

    3. Re:Wait, wait a second.... by sribe · · Score: 1

      Because I'm sure going to trust that guy with the east-Indian accent telling me over the phone to install a remote access tool to my computer. Which actually happened to me 3 something weeks ago.

      I had one that when I informed how that I knew how the scam worked, assured me that it was not a scam. When I continued to refuse, but did not hang up just because I was curious, he got really authoritative with me and ORDERED me to do what he was telling me to. Lord, did I curse then.

    4. Re:Wait, wait a second.... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      The NSA guy wants your secrets. The Indian guy wants your money.

    5. Re:Wait, wait a second.... by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      You are digitally illiterate if you "trust the Internet."

      It's not clear what is meant by "trust the Internet".

      For example, you could "trust the Internet" enough to log on to a terminal at the library and anonymously read Slashdot articles, but not "trust the Internet" enough to access your bank account online (or invest in BitCoins, heaven forfend). Does that make you digitally literate or illiterate?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    6. Re:Wait, wait a second.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He probably had taken something the Americans call "leadership training". Its how people are instructed to get things done.

      He had a little misunderstanding... for this to work, he has to be able to fire you. He did not know that part of it. You did.

    7. Re:Wait, wait a second.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're basing your trust on the other person's accent, you've already completely lost.

      Your first and main security check: Did you call them or did they call you? If they called you, call the company back by looking up their phone number from somewhere else.

    8. Re:Wait, wait a second.... by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      Also, how are they authenticating themselves? Anyone could phone me up and claim to be the Queen of England, but if they want me to follow instructions, they're going to have to prove they are who they say they are.

      Also, since when do tech companies phone you up rather than sending you an email? Stupid people are also stupid on the internet.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    9. Re:Wait, wait a second.... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Also, if Elizabeth II calls me up and asks me to do something, no matter how good the authentication, I'll follow her instructions at my own discretion. Heck, I'd do that with Barack Obama, and my predecessors didn't fight a long war to be able to ignore Elizabeth's predecessors.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    10. Re:Wait, wait a second.... by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      Good point, but as I live in England, I'm officially one of her subjects. To be honest, I don't know who voted her in.

      By the way, did Sun Tzu really say that?

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
  10. We Are The Borg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God forbid the hive-mind doesn't assimilate 100% of the population. Internet is nice, but not fundamentally essential.

    1. Re:We Are The Borg by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      but the ring, the ring must be completed!

    2. Re: We Are The Borg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was essential to let us know your opinion that is not essential.

    3. Re:We Are The Borg by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Resistance is futile.

    4. Re:We Are The Borg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      man I miss token ring!

  11. 70% of science writers are... by hurfy · · Score: 2

    I'll let you fill in your own descriptions.

    WTF, How are those two descriptions combined into one group of people to count ?

  12. 30% lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    84% of statistics are made up on the spot. 79% of people know THAT!

    1. Re:30% lol by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      84% of statistics are made up on the spot. 79% of people know THAT!

      Wow, that high? I would have expected it to be lower.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  13. NextGen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those same 30% are not even ready for current technology.

  14. It's all Lies! by digitalPhant0m · · Score: 1

    How can you trust the internet? It keeps telling me it will make my penis bigger yet has failed to deliver.

    1. Re:It's all Lies! by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      You're masturbating wrong.

  15. I'm not digitally ready. by edibobb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not ready to embrace new Windows 8 technology. I'm not ready to manage my finances on an insecure Android phone. I'm not ready to spend uncounted hours ingesting inane trash on social networks (unless there's a member of the opposite sex involved, naturally). I'm not ready to browse a web dominated by animated ads and twisted news. I am a obviously a Luddite.

    1. Re:I'm not digitally ready. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Either that or you are addicted to porn.

  16. Who cares? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 2

    The majority of that 30% of Americans will either be dead soon, or from a social-economic background in far greater need of being addressed than their lack of technological savvy.

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    1. Re:Who cares? by turkeydance · · Score: 1

      well, in the USA they vote....just about all of them. every time.

    2. Re:Who cares? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Hell, they still vote after they're dead!

    3. Re:Who cares? by footNipple · · Score: 1

      Sure, but those are the votes that I'm guessing most readers here would be glad to have counted.

  17. News at 11... NSA Recording All Internet Activity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, how does the "average" user "trust" the internet? With constant media scares around cyber-terrorism, constantly hacked accounts (including financial institutions), identity theft, and even our own government recording virtually everything we do online is it any wonder there is a group of individuals that don't trust the internet / being online? Imagine what it would be like if it was actually secure and trustworthy... oh... wait... this is the real world isn't it?

  18. Not much Info here by tquasar · · Score: 1

    "A survey....." by whom? The ITIF: a think tank, "As a result, the mission of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) is to help policy makers at the federal and state levels to better understand the nature of the new innovation economy and the types of public policies needed to drive innovation, productivity and broad-based prosperity for all Americans." , and "Prior to joining the FCC, Mr. Horrigan was Associate Director, Research, with the Pew Internet & American Life Project for nine years, where he studied the online behavior of broadband internet users, mobile internet users, and consumers of other leading edge information technology. "Earlier in his career, Horrigan was a staff officer for the Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy at the National Research Council. He also served as press secretary and senior legislative assistant to U.S. Congressman Jake Pickle (D-Texas)." QED. Links? look it up..... In closing, there are unmotivated people in the US? Really?

  19. I lol'd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If old ladies are scared of the internet, I'd like to know why they click on EVERY SINGLE FLASHING ADVERT

    1. Re:I lol'd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Old people will do anything if it seems to lead them to a bright light at the end of the tunnel...

  20. That's okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those 30% will be dead before "next generation" is truly available anyway.

  21. Amusing by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 2

    Because In my circles, its the people that understand that trust isn't absolute that are the smart people.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    1. Re:Amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      trust isn't absolute

      Are you stating that axiomatically?

      Only Sith deal in absolutes! [/tongueincheek]

  22. why would anyone trust the internet? by jsepeta · · Score: 1

    the internet is made up of people, and people inherently cannot be trusted.

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  23. The glass is half full! by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    70% of Americans are ready for the next generation of technology!

    1. Re:The glass is half full! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..And the big techs are lubing up for the future...

  24. really? this could actually mean ... by znrt · · Score: 1

    nearly 30% of Americans either aren't digitally literate or don't trust the Internet.

    ... that less than 30% of Americans are mature enough to use the Internet.

  25. In other news ... by c0d3g33k · · Score: 1

    ... 50 % of americans are below average. Oh noes!

    1. Re:In other news ... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      More precisely, 50% are below the median. "Average" is ambiguous here. Of course, there's a lot of measures in which more than half of Americans are below the mean, but for that you have to get specific about the measure.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  26. 666 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It found that nearly 30% of Americans either aren't digitally literate or don't trust the Internet

    A=6, b=12, c=18.. z=156
    Applying this number system to the english alphabet and adding up the individual letters corresponding value to "c-o-m-p-u-t-e-r" and that total may be why they don't trust the internet.

  27. That statistic can't possibly be valid by Eric+Smith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    nearly 30% of Americans either aren't digitally literate or don't trust the Internet

    For that to be true, over 70% of Americans must be BOTH digitally literate AND trust the Internet, which is impossible since anyone who trusts the Internet is not digitally literate.

    1. Re:That statistic can't possibly be valid by ebyrob · · Score: 1

      Exactly! Thanks for saving me from having to write that myself ;-)

    2. Re:That statistic can't possibly be valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but you're missing the point of the study.

      If you divide the two groups out, you might find that a significant number of those who say they "don't trust" the internet are highly technically literate and in no need of the kinds of "services" that the people who did this study are hoping to get government funding to provide.

      To bolster their case, they want to make the headline statistic as high as possible. Hence the conflating two (potentially) very different groups.

      To be fair, it is possible that the figure is genuine, and "don't trust" in this case means something altogether less sophisticated than we're talking about here. But decades of looking at press releases like this have made me kinda jaded.

    3. Re:That statistic can't possibly be valid by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      150% of Americans fail at statistics.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  28. The Next Generation technology by rossdee · · Score: 1

    Will people ever be ready for stuff like replicators, site to site transporters and Holodecks? Let alone going to far off civilizations at speeds faster than light and meeting wierd aliens.

    I guess they could cope with com-badges

  29. On average, average is a crappy metric. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't know, that isn't necessarily always the case. The average of 1, 1, 1, 2, 10 is 3. In that case, 80% are below average.

    1. Re:On average, average is a crappy metric. by c0d3g33k · · Score: 2

      If you don't know, that isn't necessarily always the case. The average of 1, 1, 1, 2, 10 is 3. In that case, 80% are below average.

      Well yeah, I do know. Because I went to school and stuff. Your pulled-out-of-your-posterior-to-make-some-sort-of-vague-point sample set is 5. The population of the U. S. is currently hovering around 316,165,718. The distribution you posit would suggest that 80% of the population ranks below earthworms. Any idiot knows a sufficiently large sample set is necessary to derive any meaning from the concept of average. Your suggestion is ridiculous. I wonder which side of the line you fall on? :-)

  30. I don't trust the Internet by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    I for one, don't trust the Internet, and haven't since they let you civilians on to it back in the 1970s.

    But I do trust Internet2, which we don't let you on, and bask in it's fiery 100 GB/s pipes and 40 GB/s outlets while you squabble in the dark in sub 20 MB/s speeds.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  31. Who cares! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The world doesn't revolve around the USA, at least not anymore.

  32. and 20% can't find the US on a map by tomhath · · Score: 1
  33. I fully trust the Internet... by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 1

    ...to send everything it knows about me to government agents and hackers. My primary security practice is being too boring to care about.

  34. I found the reason why: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "That subgroup tended to be less educated, poorer, and older than the average American."

    (This is why they don't trust the Internet.)

  35. Internet/WWW is "Next Generation Tech"? Whoa. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They hit mainstream society in a big way back in 1995, when Netscape Navigator 2 was released, bundled with a Java applet engine, JavaScript, SSL, browser frames, and cookies. A stunned Bill Gates sent out "The Internet Tidal Wave" memo to the troops; MS bought out the Spyglass browser, and Netscape's IPO the following year made billionaires out of Andressen and Clark. That was just about 20 years ago, or a full generation.

    From TFH I thought we'd see a story about thirty- and forty-somethings facing the reality of Net-tethered wearables and consumer robotics, bitcoin, drones and auto-driving cars, stuff like that.

  36. Wow! Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    70%? You must be one of them as you can't even define what the 'next generation' is that we're to afraid of.
    Maybe you should stay with your mama. You're really kind of stupid and ugly too. Well, ...

  37. "Don't trust the internet" by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    Well what the heck does that mean? Don't trust the Nigerian prince that claims to have 2 billions dollars? Don't trust that popup advertisement that claims your computer is infected with a virus?

    Don't trust the internet is the most important rule of the internet.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  38. but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But they're so good at hacking facebooks!

  39. Businesses are not ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I generally don't trust the Internet. I avoid shopping and don't do banking or bill paying. I generally don't enable javascript. But there's also another big factor: Most businesses online still don't take it seriously. Many small business either have no website or their site is useless even for finding out basic information like business hours. Last week I took a small course that was partly online. First the online part didn't work. (I was the first person who had wanted to do the online version.) Once it was working I did the online portion of the course and then had to download and print a fancy "certificate" to bring to the training center to confirm that I'd completed the online portion of the course. It never occurred to the people running the operation that my online results could be electronically transferred to the training center!

    I don't think people are going to *really* need extensive online literacy anytime soon.

  40. When you live long enough you know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not even one thing on the planet is not a scam. Slam you into bundles you did not ask for or need.
    You poor ass fuck have only been burned by these companies for perhaps 5 or 10 years us old folks have seen all their tricks for 40 or 50 years.
    And nothing you can do so you cant order what you want and need you will get fucked into a bundle that is twice what you want to pay.
    They will say no contract when you are getting it then after you have it you have a year contract.

    So you deal with it us old folks say fuckum not just cut the TV wire but all wires and get out of the house and load up the boat.

    Used DVDs are almost free now,

  41. The problem's not finding things on the internet by turning+in+circles · · Score: 2

    I'm more concerned about my searches - looking for things on the internet scares me. What you search for can define what you're thinking about more than what you find. For example, just today I was asked by a website, based on a search I ran, if I had metastatic prostate cancer. Umm, (long pause here because I don't have a prostate) no.

    --
    Might as well face it I'm addicted to data.
  42. what do you expect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These are the same people that can't handle kinder surprise

  43. You think?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "or don't trust the Internet"

    Snowden

    It should be 100% as long as the NSA is around.

  44. Why does it matter? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    There's plenty of technologically literate people in India who can handle working with the new technology that Americans can't bother to learn to use. If the Americans don't want those jobs there are plenty of others who do.

  45. I already feel left behind by mobile apps. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not being a very social animal, I don't have much use for being constantly in touch with people, so I've never had much justification to buy a complicated phone. But those who are the other way now have an entire world of computing that only partly intersects the general internet I'm familiar with.

    When I called someone on my phone who was a few years younger, she seemed baffled - even a little angry - that I called instead of texted. It never even occurred to me.

    And people now just assume everyone has access to GPS everywhere they go, but I only ever need directions somewhere a few times a year, so why would I pay for mobile internet all year-round just for those rare occasions when I can figure out where to go with my own brain?

    Most of the mobile scene seems unnecessary and pointless, but people act like it's an essential part of life. So I feel like part of the past. The music I cherish has become completely irrelevant, for one thing. And yet I still don't have a single gray hair on my head or wrinkle on my face.

    So, in true old man fashion, rather than accept my oldness, I will simply act as though it's the world that's crazy and not me. It's idiotic to pay hundreds of dollars a year for mobile internet unless you spend most of your time on the go. It's idiotic to want to be in constant contact with everyone you know. Everything I can't afford, you're an idiot for having.

    Now get off my lawn, so I can listen to my real music (Nirvana) so's yous stupid kids can listen to your autotuned elevator music.

  46. I've been using the internet for 30 years. by AJWM · · Score: 1

    And I still don't trust it.

    --
    -- Alastair
  47. I feel left behind by mobile apps. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not being a very social animal, I don't have much use for being constantly in touch with people, so I've never had much justification to buy a complicated phone. But those who are the other way now have an entire world of computing that only partly intersects the general internet I'm familiar with.

    When I called someone on my phone who was a few years younger, she seemed baffled - even a little angry - that I called instead of texted. It never even occurred to me.

    And people now just assume everyone has access to GPS everywhere they go, but I only ever need directions somewhere a few times a year, so why would I pay for mobile internet all year-round just for those rare occasions when I can figure out where to go with my own brain?

    Most of the mobile scene seems unnecessary and pointless, but people act like it's an essential part of life. So I feel like part of the past. The music I cherish has become completely irrelevant, for one thing. And yet I still don't have a single gray hair on my head or wrinkle on my face.

    So, in true old man fashion, rather than accept my oldness, I will simply act as though it's the world that's crazy and not me. It's idiotic to pay hundreds of dollars a year for mobile internet unless you spend most of your time on the go. It's idiotic to want to be in constant contact with everyone you know. Everything I can't afford, you're an idiot for having.

    Now get off my lawn, so I can listen to my real music (Nirvana) so's yous stupid kids can listen to your autotuned elevator music.

  48. I don't trust the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't trust the internet. And I'm not young. And I have an AD in Electronics Engineering, and a BSc in Computer Science. And I've been on the internet since 1989. There are parts of the internet that I trust more than other parts, but there are millions of people on it, and they don't necessarily all tell the truth all the time. When Putin states "its not my troops going into Crimea", I don't believe him. When he later admits "ok it was my troops" then he is believable. When Mr. Zwamibleteiea Awbduowomauo, second keeper of the royal treasury of the African country of Sumbwoatoduso asks me for a few dollars so that he can unclog the treasury and he is offering me 300 trillion trainloads of gold and gems in return, I still don't want to hive any money. Go trust the internet if you want to, I don't.

  49. Next Generation by Muros · · Score: 1

    In completely unrelated news, according to the 2010 US Census,almost 30% of American Fathers Aren't Ready For the Next Generation

  50. And? by jandersen · · Score: 1

    The fact that so many never use the internet could be because the internet does not actually give them anything they want. 30% sounds like a lot - if that is accurate - but how does that compare to how many that don't use a smartphone or watch TV? Even if you are not a luddite, you may find the price is far too high, considering the benefit you would get from it. Internet is a very much like cable TV, where you get access to an impressive 500 channels, but most of them just run near-identical soaps and reality shows, which you can get for free on BBC already, in some form. Why pay for that on top of your licence fee?

  51. Justified Caution by some+old+guy · · Score: 1

    Out of the maligned 30%, I'd like to see a breakdown separating the merely technology-challenged versus people who have seen enough stories about identity theft, .gov surveillance, stalking, and all the other downsides to the net and just said, "Fuck it, it ain't worth it." There is, believe it or not, a sub-group of ex-internet users who are by no means Luddites. They simply just say "No!" to all the crapvertising, crime, and wasted time.

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
  52. And the technically literate... by TractorBarry · · Score: 1

    And the technically literate are even more afraid of the internet because they know how shoddy a lot of the code running it is.

    Not to mention the sheer crapulence of the average website (all javascript links, flash abominations, piss poor use of graphics, loading of javascript from multiple domains most of which is not even used etc. etc. etc.)

    And let's not get started on how utterly dreadful the usability is on a lot of sites.

    I've gone from being an early adopter to refusing to do a lot of things online (i.e. banking, paying bills etc.). It's not worth dealing with the complete suckage.

    --
    Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
  53. Count the polls - exercise for your homework by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From now until Labor Day, pay attention to how many "news stories" are filler like this - I have seen an absolute flood of polls this year, to the point I'm ready to LOL at the next poll filler story in my RSS feed. From Memorial Day until Labor Day is always slow, but this year the 24/7 news cycle seems to be relying on polls for filler.

  54. Re:The problem's not finding things on the interne by Cruciform · · Score: 1

    I bought Dark Souls on Steam during the summer sale last week. I mentioned this on Facebook. The next time I went to Kotaku to read a story it recommended a story about Dark Souls to me. Not the new sequel, but the one from years ago that I just bought. The article was from 2011. So it's not like it's a coincidence that a recent story matched up to my posted content.
    Gives me the creeps.

  55. Why trust the internet? by Nillerz · · Score: 1

    I used to do a lot of web development and e-mail security, I do not trust the internet. Good on anyone who doesn't.

  56. 100% Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It found that nearly 30% of Americans either aren't digitally literate or don't trust the Internet. That subgroup tended to be less educated, poorer, and older than the average American."

    From working near a public computer area in a public library, I can attest to those statistics.

  57. No trust in the Internet by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Nobody should trust the Internet. WTF?

  58. No one knows you're a dog on the internet by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 1

    I don't not trust the internet, but one has to be very prudent in verifying sources. There is a LOT of misinformation that get perpetuated around the net. Part of it is the armchair charlatans, the other are parties "planting" half-truths or outright lies to further their agenda with little fear of retaliation. There's a lot of wisdom to the saying "no one knows you're a dog on the internet".

    --
    Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
  59. You can lead a horse to water... by wcrowe · · Score: 1

    I am skeptical of claims that people suffer from "digital readiness". I guarantee you they are perfectly capable of using the internet when it comes to porn. It's not like it requires years of schooling. Once someone has access to the internet there is no excuse for not becoming "digitally literate", other than a lack of motivation.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  60. Trust but verify by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    I trust the internet enough to pay my bills online. I also check my accounts online to make sure nobody has fsked with them.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  61. Re:detecting snooping by FranklinWebber · · Score: 1
  62. As an aside by Xaedalus · · Score: 1

    This uphill battle is essentially why Aaron Swartz hanged himself. People attributed it to the DoJ but gave the academic journal industry that he was fighting a free pass.

    This is the clearest, most coherent argument in favor of Swartz's side I've ever read. Now I better understand the context of why his suicide matters. The whole "blame the USDoJ" thing didn't quite make sense to me. Adding in the extreme difficulty of trying to get access to research journals due to paywalls and other "closed-shop" barrier tactics of the academic journal world plus MIT's reluctance to challenge that culture and stand up for Swartz--now that make sense and gives me context. I wish someone had phrased this point in such a succinct manner when it all first erupted.

    --
    Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
  63. Buy Insurance in 7-1/2 minutes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can buy insurance in 7-1/2 minutes. That's how you distinguish between young hip internet users and old geezers who think it takes 15 minutes.

  64. Ah, it's called Technology Adoption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Technology adoption has a distribution and 30% of the population is ALWAYS in the late-adopter/laggard part of the distribution FOR EVERY TECHNOLOGY.

    This is NOT news or meaningful in any way!

  65. I found the reason why: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone trust the internet anymore? It's biased, comments / reviews are manipulated, it's full of spam and malware, it's backend is big data now (whether corporate or government).

  66. Digitally Illiterate & Doesn't trust the Inter by ememisya · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure how the two categories relate. One could be fairly digitally literate and still see no reason to "trust the Internet" a given country is running. Or as Geroge W. Bush put it, the Internets. (On an unrelated side note, I never knew how much of a visionary Dubya was, not only was the Internets comment correct in the future, so is the thought that if we went into Iraq today we'd be greeted as liberators. Man of the future that one.

  67. Re:detecting snooping by Wootery · · Score: 1

    That's the one.

    If an entangled pair of objects is shared between two parties, anyone intercepting either object alters the overall system, revealing the presence of the third party (and the amount of information they have gained).

    I don't get this. How would the recipient know that what they've received is 'wrong'?