Slashdot Mirror


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

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

That said, "Despite accepting surveillance in a number of situations, 60 percent of respondents said that they would react negatively if they discovered that a network they currently use employed TLS proxies." The study also found 4.5% of participants were "jaded" toward the state of privacy and security on the internet, feeling that their traffic is already monitored, and that the government would circumvent whatever technologies we put in place to protect it. The researchers say this group "once cared about these issues but has lost all hope and has largely given up on ever achieving a secure world."

13 of 223 comments (clear)

  1. Unsurprising, really by willworkforbeer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Americans Show 'Surprising Willingness' To Accept Internet Surveillance

    Offer them a free webcam and $1.99/minute and they'll drop ... all pretense.

    --
    Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
    1. Re:Unsurprising, really by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
  2. They don't understand what it means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't confuse ignorance with acceptance.

    1. Re:They don't understand what it means by kilfarsnar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't confuse ignorance with acceptance.

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

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

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    2. Re:They don't understand what it means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

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

  3. Land of the free? Home of the brave? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

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

    That's pretty damned pathetic.

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

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  4. The questions were oddly techincal by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

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

    *drops mic and walks*

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:The questions were oddly techincal by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you mind if corporations know your every activity on the internet?

      Given what people put on Facebook, the answer is no, they don't mind.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  5. The concept is not that difficult by rtkluttz · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    --
    Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
  6. Slashdot is really stepping up the propaganda. by pecosdave · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    Now we're getting the opinion poll to manipulate opinion.

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

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  7. Title broken... by Lumpy · · Score: 4

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

    FTFY

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  8. Re:first godwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not about you.

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

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

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

  9. Never trust a survey by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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