Slashdot Mirror
Millennials Value Speed Over Security, Says Survey (dailydot.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Daily Dot: Millennials stand apart from other Americans in preferring faster Internet access to safer Internet access, according to a new survey. When digital-authentication firm SecureAuth asked people from all age groups whether they would rather be safer online or browse faster online, 57 percent of Americans chose security and 43 percent chose speed. But among millennials, the results were almost reversed: 54 percent chose speed over security. Young people are also more willing than the overall population to share sensitive information over public Wi-Fi connections, which are notoriously insecure as they allow anyone on the network to analyze and intercept passing traffic. While a clear majority (57 percent) of Americans told SecureAuth that they transmitted such information over public Wi-Fi, nearly eight in 10 (78 percent) of millennials said they did so. A surprising 44 percent of millennials believe their data is generally safe from hackers, and millennials are more likely than members of other age groups to share account passwords with friends. Americans overall are paying more attention to some aspects of digital security. An October 2015 study by the wireless industry's trade group found that 61 percent of Americans use passwords on their smartphones and 58 percent use them on their tablets, compared to 50 percent and 48 percent, respectively, in 2012. The recent study lines up with a report published on May 24 that found that the elderly use more secure passwords than millennials.
But of course that's obvious. They've also been indoctrinated by 'social media', the media in general, and corporations that sharing everything is normal, and that 'privacy' is something anomalous, and that only people with something to hide want privacy. The real question is: will they live long enough to learn the error of their ways, and even more to the point, will they learn that before they reproduce and pass on their indoctrinated ways to another generation?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Are parents not teaching their children about VPN? SlashdotDeals is offering discount VPN packages from several vendors, and that solves the insecure WiFi problems.
I know this study didn't purport to say "all millennials". So this is directed at just the portion that values speed over security.
YOU ARE MORONS!
If you think any of these companies you're putting your trust (and your data) in are your "friend", you've been misled and/or are delusional.
After you get burned enough by this insane level of trust, you'll (hopefully) come around.
Until then, the rest of us are just going to sit back and laugh at you...
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
It can be argued that if the biggest, most secure companies in the business, with billions to throw at security, like Sony, HD, and others, get hacked, then the average person has zero way to protect themselves, so might as well not bother. Ransomware? Keep good backups? Id theft? Happens all the time. Privacy? Doesn't matter... it winds up on social networks anyway, and I wind up telling the world how many coils are in my morning mud anyway.
Of course they do. "stop and think" is not taught in schools anymore (if it ever was). The only reason my kids aren't getting their PCs owned every 2 months is because they're sitting behind pfsense and the file server is virus scanned daily. I can't even imagine what millenials do when their stuff doesn't work any more.... oh wait, I do:
"Meh. I'll just buy another one."
COPPA doesn't work very well... kids need education as to what they can do online, they need to know the rules about oversharing when they get started. They should be shown e-mail and texting to people they already know before they learn to publish. Dr. Spock didn't know about this problem in time to write about it.
Tell me, every time you wait in line for TSA anal probing, don't you prefer speed over security?
What type of Security are you talking about? If the security comes in the form boot locking and signed code at the cost of removing fair use, I'd be against it too.
No good deed goes unpunished.
Yes, it really is that simple. They have no reference to the expectation of privacy and freedom. The surveillance state is normal to them.
They're trying to position this as a generational thing, like the upcoming generation is going to behave some way that's completely different than all previous ones.
What if it has nothing to do with being a "Millennial"? What if it's just about being young and stupid (or if you prefer, inexperienced)? But I guess that wouldn't play to the gender gap dollar. "Huge. Huge in times of recession. Giant market..."
Breakfast served all day!
They know they're not getting secure browsing, so they prefer something they can actually measure: bandwidth.
When I was young I was much more impatient then I am now. Millenials are young now.
[quote]to share sensitive information over public Wi-Fi connections, which are notoriously insecure[/quote]
I've never understood this whole idea - anything sensitive should be going over an encrypted connection anyway. Who cares if some idiot sitting next to me in the coffee shop can sniff it? He can't make heads or tails of it anyway. In the case of a MITM attack set up in the wireless gateway, the certificate validation / host key / other host validation protocols should fail. Adding a VPN connection adds layers of defence, but something that's highly unnecessary for most individuals and data.
Otherwise, I'm probably just browsing sites that don't require logins or any other information from me - in which case, again, there's nothing secret or proprietary there and I don't care if I get sniffed.
The reason is that the ways that typical security are applied = actually insecure and less effective (for the user).
Take for example, a very common password requirement at Chase bank: They require that passwords be >8 characters, have a !@#$@# special character, numbers, capital letters, etc.
And.. if you forget your password, it cannot be reset to the same as any of your last 5 old passwords. Even if the last passwords were reset voluntarily due to forgetting.
So when I, with already a relatively good memory for passwords, forget my nonsensical password that matches no other password at Chase, I cannot reset it to something I can even temporarily remember as my past password because that is not allowed.
That leads to me into this neverending password hell of constantly rotating passwords and resets that make me feel like I have less access to my account and less ability to monitor what's going on.
I much prefer the slightly less secure but easier to remember passwords with no such restrictions when I have to reset it due to forgetfulness. This is a ridiculous state of affairs.
millennials are like what 20% of the population?
COPPA doesn't work very well.
COPPA doesn't apply to millennials. Millennials are people that came of age around the year 2000, so they are adults now. COPPA applies to kids under the age of 13. In much of the English speaking world, a zero is referred to as "naught", so these kids born during the 00 decade are called "naughties".
I will argue the devils advocate, you don't need privacy if everyone is open, if everyone has nude photos of themselves on the internet and pictures of them being drunk and stupid, then there is no downside to having these pictures on the internet, because everyone does and no one can be judged negatively for it, because it is ubiquitous. We are nearing the point where if you are not open on the internet you are considered weird. Older people may think it is better, but old people die and their opinions don't matter for as long, where as your peers grow with you and will be with you forever, it is better to fit in with them, then with people 30 years older. I actively encourage every youth of the world to not be concerned with privacy and waste your mental resources on being paranoid. Enjoy your freedom.
The headline is bogus meaningless crap. "Security" has nothing whatsoever to do with "Access Speed" except to note that if you disable access completely (reduce speed to zero) the "Security" becomes infinite.
In other words, a perfectly secure computer is one that is turned off and unplugged. You cannot do anything at all on it very fast (or even very slow).
Conversely, you *can* increase the security of the web by blocking all advertisements, all javascript, and all third-party cookies and access. It will go really very super fast. In this case, increased security is directly proportional to increased speed.
For the most part however, one has nothing whatsoever to do with the other.
I'd say about 40% of Millenials value their phones over their own family. I'd bet 20% would give up solid foods for a year vs. giving up social media for a year. The fact that many Millenials would choose speed over security shouldn't surprise anyone.
Millennials value "More speed" over "More security."
Which could mean "I'm already secure enough" or it could mean "I'd like to be able to watch youtube without 5 minutes of buffering, thank you." I wouldn't doubt that many Millennials better understand the threats that "online" poses to them than your average grandfather. Reversing the headline gets you "Older Americans fearful of the dangers of the Internet."
The author also implies that sharing passwords with friends is insecure - we know this (duh), but the gain of letting your friend use your Netflix account is greater than the perceived risk of your friend turning evil and compromising your $8/month Netflix account.
Same with logging in over public wi-fi hotspots. Any really sensitive data you're sharing is likely going over HTTPS, and if not - do you really care if the guy at the next table is reading your tweets? They're public anyways.
It sounds to me like you're proposing a world without "social justice".
Those who support "social justice" do tend to be the most judgmental, intolerant, scornful, and angry bullies around, despite hypocritically claiming not to be.
They're the ones who force things like race, gender, and sexual preference into every possible issue, even while claiming such things are "social constructs", and even when such things are totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.
And if you happen to merely just express an idea that they dislike or disagree with, you'd better watch out! They will attack you without mercy, even while claiming that it's wrong to bully others.
Just look at how "social justice" supporters savagely attacked Brendan Eich just because he supported traditional marriage. Nobody should have to lose his job, voluntarily or involuntarily, merely for his belief about marriage! Just imagine the uproar from the "social justice" crowd if somebody had lost his job for supporting homosexual marriage. They would've gone absolutely wild with outrage!
The world you describe would be possible, were it not for "social justice" standing in the way.
This is not about millennials vs. non-millennials. This is about younger vs. older, in any era.
When we're younger, we're more impatient, more reckless, take more risks, etc. Suffering from the consequences of poor choices helps us to make better ones in the future.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
..That didn't get one single comment above 2
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have backups to corrupt.
fight!
BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of dollars to Microsoft because they treasure convenience over security.
Makes me want to barf.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
After all, we don't see many millenia ls driving Volvos either.
They don't have anything substantial to protect yet. Of course they don't care. When you get older, you've (hopefully) accumulated some financial reserves that need to be protected. If you're still young, you typically won't have too much to protect.
The sharing economy is somewhat "instant" to the older generation, but to the younger gen, it is instant cause it's truly on demand when you look at the sharing services out there.
This is what drive the millennial attitude to services. Because shared services are somewhat open, security takes a back seat by default.
Trusting that a network has been built securely is totally different than trusting that no one is [currently] hacking your public wifi. That's just trusting the people around you.
Once again, this whole focus on digital-needs-to-be-secure-otherwise-it-fails is remarkably inconsistent with the windows in my house being made of glass, my car doors being accessible to any locksmith, and the yellow painted line on the highway that keeps high-speed traffic from colliding with other high-speed traffic -- and pedestrians.
Choosing to trust that the persons around you aren't criminals is a good thing for society. My doors are often unlocked. Sometimes I leave my garage door wide open. I drive a convertible, and leave it parked, top-down. And there ain't nothin' stopping anyone from throwing a handful of dandylion seeds into my lawn.
Most of my neighbours have keys to my house -- so they can quickly help me if I need them. I trust that they won't steal my family jewels.
Digital doesn't need to be perfectly secure. It merely needs to be as secure as we choose to need it to be. Judging by everything else in life, that just ain't very secure at all.
Your local jewelry store, for example. Smash the display case, grab the real diamonds (not the fake ones) and run. The front door has a cage to stop you. But there's literally a back door to almost every one of those "secure" stores that has nothing at all to stop you.
It's never been about stopping the criminal. It's always been about making the line very obvious. I don't worry about my car being stolen because it isn't something that anyone's going to do by accident -- grant theft auto is a very big deal. That's all digital needs -- a proper legal system to make illegal things easily prosecutable.
In other words, it's all about the deterrent. Works in the animal kingdom too: no armour is thick enough, no claw sharp enough, to make the fight recreational.
lol, Millennials even accumulating anything of worth? That's a laugh.
Millennials are not only care-free, they also generally have the "YOLO" mentality as well. A large number of them.
The YOLO generation are the absolute worst, most insufferable entitled cunts around.
The sad thing is, they could live their entire life healthily and take up the YOLO attitude when they are in their 50s and not feel any of the effects from such a harsh lifestyle until they are noticeably ill from age.
Damage to the body is cumulative. Building your body up properly in the younger years will allow you to throw quite a bit of shit at it in later life and not have it cause anywhere near as much damage.
Nope, YOLO KLOL, gotta get SHITFACED 25/8.
Considering that my 60 year old mother understands concepts such as IP and NAT... computers are ubiquitous. Knowing how to use one effectively and safely isn't a difficult task for anyone capable of remembering things longer than a couple minutes.
This survey has Dunning Kruger written all over it. These "millennials" haven't yet run into a situation where lack of security bites them in the ass, therefore there is no problem.
This is no different than older people who are anti-vaxxers because they don't believe things like Polio or Measles are a threat, only to change their tune once their precious baby dies or is disabled for life by something that could have been trivially avoided. Or the billion other examples of people who don't take basic precautions or make the effort to learn about this, that, or the other thing.
It all boils down to the fact that people don't know what they don't know, combined with the hubris of thinking that just cause they haven't experienced something, it doesn't exist.
Oh, and then for icing on the cake, throw in the general "My ignorance is as good as your knowledge" attitude prevalent in North America (and presumably other countries), and well... some people just have to learn the hard way.
A network will always be able to mess with your data. Trusting in the security of a network is stupid. It used to be a theoretical threat, but now we know that organizations like the NSA sniff everything they get.
The Internet has taught us that we must always use end-to-end encryption. That's why, unlike the phone network, a big percentage of data is secure. The phone network is one of those networks that are considered to be "secure". In reality it's very likely that most phone calls, and particularly their "metadata", will be recorded. In fact many phone companies record the "metadata" in order to be able to send you a bill.
Why choosing one or the other? I don't immediately see how a more secure connection would be a (noticeably) slower one. There will be a little bit of overhead in the crypto, but this is on the order of a few tens of bytes on 1500 byte packets so you will be very unlikely to notice it.
your counter-argument is pointless .. chances are many of these empires fell for similar reasons. And even if they didn't, there's no ground to rush our own demise by imitating the Athenians .. would you personally commit suicide on the grounds that "we're all going to die one day, anyway ..." ??
moderators, please have a look at this !
Asshole companies have been misleading the public.
Windows is Global Mother Fucking Spyware, so is Apple. Google tracks any and everything it can and so does Facebook. They bootybust. To even use Twitter at all you have to be some sort of asshat. There are a lot of dickheads who "play ball" with the spies, not knowing they are a nanosecond from Hell at any given time.
God is patient, but not a fool.
http://imgur.com/qmoyla6
Oh the irony of all the "millennials are stupid" comments combined with their penchant for voting for Bernie Sanders.
Younger people almost always assume more risk than their parents, this cycle has been going on like, forever....
They've grown up in a world where nobody needs a warrant to snoop through your stuff. In their whole lives, they've never made a phone call or sent a text message that wasnt analyzed by the CIA, FBI, DHS, ATF, TSA.
Of course the dont value privacy... theyve never experienced it..
The two choices are not exclusive.
Film at 11.
Look, we all know FB and the NSA are tracking us, and it's built in to the code of the apps we use, and even the chipsets on our phones.
We're not stupid.
Now give us 100 GB/sec like we can get on almost any US university campus and nobody will get hurt.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Millennials are just starting in the workforce so they have much less to lose if they do get compromised. That also means that whatever setback occurs can be quickly recovered. While I can understand why they may not care now about exposure of their content and information today - that isn't to say that will be a constant throughout their lives.
Ask them the same question in 10 to 20 years and see what they say. If they have significant savings or other holdings that are compromised that took many years to acquire - or their credit gets trashed - you can bet they will change their answer. There may be edge cases - but the vast majority will have families, mortgages, and other issues that disruption through faulty security will be unacceptable.
Polls like this are of limited value unless you can look beyond the poll itself to what is really behind how people are responding. Don't fall for the hype. Be a critical thinker.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Why should they care about security? until a problem does happen to them they won't ever care... When was the last time we rounded up a minority (or a group we couldn't stand) and punished them? Of course security isn't as important, the security has never caused such a crisis recently. Instead lack of security has blown up planes, crashed them into buildings, bombed marathons... of course they won't see personal security as important to them.
Now, if we used the data we were gathering to punish people for something they didn't mean to do, or did inadvertently, and then banned them from ever being successful again then maybe they will care about security.
For example, can't we find out who 571,000+ people that liked "Friday" on youtube are and jail them for 5 years for "causing a blight on society"? Then their generation might start caring again.
See subject: For less via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...
Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus (slows you) + less security issues/complexity. Compliments firewalls (w/ layered drivers blocking less used IP addys vs. hosts blocking more used domains) & DNS (lightens dns load). Gets data via 10 security sites.
Ads rob bandwidth/speed, security (malvertising), privacy (tracking) + anonymity.
Hosts add speed (hardcodes/adblocks), security (bad sites/poisoned dns), reliability (dns down), & anonymity (dns requestlogs/trackers) natively. Hosts != ClarityRay blockable (vs. souled-out to admen inferior wasteful redundant slow usermode addons)
Works vs. caps & HTTP PUSH ads.
Avg. webpage = big as Doom http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... & ads = 40% of the size.
APK
P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/... (Verified by Malwarebytes' S. Burn "I've seen the code & it's safe" http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... )