Slashdot Mirror
Consumers' Privacy Concerns Not Backed By Their Actions (betanews.com)
Ian Barker, writing for BetaNews: A large majority of people say they are concerned about their online privacy, but this is not reflected in their actions according to a new study. The survey from Blue Fountain Media reveals that 90 percent of respondents are very concerned about their internet privacy and 48 percent wish 'more was being done about it.' Yet despite this 60 percent of those polled happily download apps without reading terms and conditions, and close to 20 percent still download apps even when they have read the terms and don't like them. A third of those polled say they would delete an app that tracks their whereabouts, but 50 percent say whether they would do so depends how much they like the app. Interestingly less than 10 percent believe an app that tracks their location is actually useful to them.
That's like saying, "Patriots' Concerns About The Constitution, The Rule of Law, Limited Government, and Ethical Leadership Not Backed By Their Voting Records".
You are welcome on my lawn.
Correlating whether or not one reads a EULA is not an effective metric.
Take an app which allows texting from a web browser. Both will need to have a clause like "we collect your text messages and contacts", because that's genuinely necessary for the service to be performed. However, if it's followed up with "we don't sell to third parties" isn't helpful - it still allows them to give the data away, or sell access to the data, or give the data to a shell company who then does the selling. Even if none of these happen, such a clause allows for the first party firm to do their own data mining and sell the results in aggregate. Then, if they do any of the above, and *those* companies get hacked, you can be certain that even if the app developer doesn't have an arbitration clause, it would be almost impossible to take legal action against the other company.
Location data is equally messy. The company with the most location data is Google itself, and unless you root, you're not stopping them from getting it with creepy accuracy even if the GPS is off. From there, apps requiring it are equally troubling. The EULA is a binary "use it or not". Most people would understandably let a navigation app use the GPS location in order to provide directions, but while Apple only allows apps to pull location data while an app is running, Android will happily let apps run a resident location scraper in the background without providing meaningful feedback to the end user.
Finally, the real metric of whether people are willing to do something about their privacy starts small - paid apps with no-data-mining guarantees, and free apps where users pay with privacy. See what wins. ...but nobody wants to do that.
Which one of those will help not elect the same sumbitches?
We just did that. The Dems put up their candidate. Because it's her turn (needs of the party over those of the voters). The GOP tried the same thing, but got an outsider. In part as a FUCK YOU to the good ol' boy system. And look who got elected. Not because he was the best choice. But because enough of the voters didn't want more of the same shit.
Have gnu, will travel.
Terms and conditions are everywhere - not just in applications. Do you have a cell phone? You've agreed to your carrier's terms and conditions. Did you go to the movies? You've agreed to their terms and conditions. Did you attend a concert or sporting event? More terms and conditions. In fact, the terms and conditions for these likely make the ones for a phone app seem like plain, easily understood English.
So people can't avoid terms and conditions unless they stay in their house all day and never venture outside.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.