Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

People Are Concerned About Their Privacy In Theory, Not Practice, Says New Study (fortune.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the business-as-usual dept.

A new privacy survey from IBM's Institute for Business Value found that 81% of consumers say they've become more concerned about how companies use their data, while 87% think companies should be more heavily regulated on personal data management. Three-quarters of the people felt like they were less likely to trust companies with data and 89% said companies should be clearer about how their products use data. Given these findings, you'd think people would take actions in response to companies losing or misusing their data -- but they're not. Fortune reports: 71% said that they were willing to give up privacy to get access to what technology can offer. Only 45% have updated their privacy settings on products in response and 16% walked away from a company because of data misuse. It's already been clear that one reasons for big data leaks is because there is little financial risk to companies, as Motherboard reported. This new data suggests that companies have even less to worry about, as most people are willing to keep doing business with them.

62 comments

  1. The Dumb Fucks gaffe was a decade ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It took them this long to figure out what Zuck has known for 10 years. You can insult people to their face and they will beg for more.

    1. Re: The Dumb Fucks gaffe was a decade ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this the same story reposted earlier today?

      https://m.slashdot.org/story/352538

    2. Re: The Dumb Fucks gaffe was a decade ago by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 2

      Posting two stories based on the same original study, 5:20 hours apart. Well done Slashdot.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    3. Re: The Dumb Fucks gaffe was a decade ago by SirTreveyan · · Score: 1

      Another sign that Slashdot's editorial standards have disappeared over the last few years. Those editing obviously do not give a shit about what they are doing. Like a traffic cop who writes bogus tickets knowing they will not lose their job over it..the editors now just slap anything out there, much like a spaghetti coder hopes it will stick, to be able to say they hit or quota of stories for the day... How much lower can they go?

      --

      SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0

      0 rows returned

  2. Well duh... by h4x0t · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's hard to do it right without a great deal of effort. A lot of front end effort went into making sure everything is opt out with a timer that flips the switch back when you arent paying attention.

    Maybe if we, as a society, had lawmakers and regulators that gave a shit about our personal information, we wouldn't have articles like this that say 'so do people really even care?'.... we would just have our damn privacy.... and maybe give some of that up (KNOWINGLY, perhaps for MONEY) for the furtherance of big data applications.

    1. Re:Well duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you want to be a slave to lawmakers and regulators now.

      Grow up.

    2. Re:Well duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say it's IMPOSSIBLE to do it the right way. If you're using the internet at all.

    3. Re:Well duh... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      That is really the point of the story, People care about their privacy but a too lazy to protect it, so that means, they will push government to do it for them and they will push, harder and harder and harder until they get it. Once they achieve their goal of forcing government to protect their privacy, voila, they no longer have to do anything about doing it themselves. See how it 'WILL' work. You only have to force government once and well, continue to fend off corrupt corporations, corrupt lobbyists and corrupt politicians - psychopaths all, clinically, not an insult, a reality, their behaviour defines their genetics.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:Well duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the same deal with having a president who is an idiot. It's a dopamine high because of the risk of danger. "Oh my gosh, what is the government going to do with my Google searches! How exciting!" (Or not, it just goes into a database.)

    5. Re:Well duh... by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

      Not only does it take a great deal of effort ( and knowledge / skill to implement ) but, we're fighting against those whose sole purpose is to hoover up as much information as they can about everyone. ( Google, Facebook, Microsoft, et. al )

      They have armies of intelligent folks working this problem from the opposite end.
      They have nearly unlimited budgets to do it with.
      There is nearly zero oversight over how much data they are allowed to pull and what they do with it because Big Brother ( Government ) loves this information too much to give it up.

      These days it seems like EVERYTHING has some sort of built in mechanism designed to report on consumer behavior in one form or another.

    6. Re: Well duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Better the lawmaker and regulator we know than the corporate scumbags that we don't.

      If we hadn't had regulatory oversight, every road and railway in the US would have different widths and none would interconnect without an "interconnect station" which would serve only to bottleneck and frustrate travellers.

      Moronic old people who thing regulation is bad think stuff like that is no big deal. They need to have their arses kicked out of the US and sent to countries where retirement isn't a thing, let alone social security. And where medicine is unregulated so they can die a slow painful death at the hands of a "healer" who insists sugar water is legit.

      Swear to jayzus, these idiots wouldn't have the chance to create a business nor keep their sorry arses out of debtor's prisons and poor houses if it wasn't for massive jumps forward in regulatory oversight and a hard earned insight that their forefathers had to learn, you're life is worth nothing to those with the ability to ignore your suffering. Pull your heads out of your lazy fat arses and carry your share of the burden of living in the most wealthy super power on the planet.

      Don't like it, get out. It's time you were forced to grow up as well.

    7. Re:Well duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This video is informative regarding the situation...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0-cgs51zEA
      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0LZEMeUcAEo5OV.jpg

    8. Re: Well duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They need to have their arses kicked out of the US and sent to countries where retirement isn't a thing, let alone social security. And where medicine is unregulated so they can die a slow painful death at the hands of a "healer" who insists sugar water is legit.

      If you change unregulated to unaffordable and sugar water I to opioids...

      You'll kick them out of the U.S. into the U.S?

    9. Re:Well duh... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      So you want to be a slave to lawmakers and regulators now.

      Grow up.

      From the government, to big corporations, to money itself, you are going to be a "slave" to something or someone. At least you have some control over the government.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    10. Re: Well duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really not that much effort these days to avoid giving up all your information to the big data mining operations. VPNs are cheap and there are plenty available. Even simple phone apps for it. Private browsers are also plentiful. You can even setup random UA spoofing. At most it might take you an hour to set up a fully anonymous environment but after that, there is virtually no work involved at all. You should also completely avoid the data pigs too like Facebook and LinkedIn.

      If you're still using Facebook after all the latest revelations, then you're just a fool and you deserve to have all your data stolen, sold, and used against you in countless ways you could never imagine.

      Let me state this as clearly as possible because people don't seem to get it yet... Facebook does NOT make you more social. It makes you LESS social. There are MANY alternatives for communicating with friends that do not involve mining all your data and holding it hostage. So let go of Facebook already. Yous didn't have a problem ditching MySpace when it was still clearly a better platform than Facebook. Get rid of your latest fools addiction and move on.

    11. Re:Well duh... by SirTreveyan · · Score: 2

      It is not a matter of people being too lazy to protect their data. It is more that corporations, web sites, corrupt or not, do things that make it difficult for the public to protect their data. With obscure wording of privacy protection settings, burying privacy settings so deep in a hierarchy those settings can not be found, to requiring multiple selections be set a certain way to get the privacy expected corporations are purposely making it difficult for the public to protect their privacy. Since what most consider private data is so ripe for commoditization we can not expect corporate entities such as Google, Microsoft, and Facebook to self regulate. In fact we have seen not only to they not self-regulate, they do all they can to make it more difficult for the users to control their private data. After all, these corporations are making money hand over fist from using data that the public may or may not what them to have.

      Why do these corporations want to track everywhere I go on the web? So they can feed me ads? I have an ad-blocker so I do not see advertisements. It is not that I do not want ads, but I do not want 20 or 30 irrelevant ads per web page served to me. For example, a friend sent me a link to page telling me about the new car he ordered from the factory. If I follow that link, I will now have new car advertisements showing up in my web pages for the next 6 months!!! Why? Am I in the market for a new car? No! These ads are 100% irrelevant to me and a waste of the advertisers money. So not only is my web surfing privacy violated, the advertiser is screwed by paying for ads shown to people who do not give a shit about the product they are trying to shill. But yet these ads are sold as being directed to a audience who is in the market for their product. Not quite true.

      Lets look at Microsoft Outlook. I recently made flight reservations...and Outlook complained that it could not read my email to add this information to my PUBLIC calendar. Why is Outlook invading my privacy in this way? If I want an event added to my calendar, let me decide when to do it!!! BTW i would NEVER post this on my calendar as it is a security threat. Outlook is invading my privacy and endangering my well being by doing this. What is more, from the web interface, I can not remove any calendar entries. Who knows who has access to this calendar that I did not request or make use. And before you say anything, I have quit using Outlook because of that behavior. This behavior should be opt-in, not the default and definitely not a behavior that is impossible to opt-out. It is well past time for the US government to establish regulations to protect the public's privacy due the the failure of the corporations to do as they have promised so many times in the past.

      --

      SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0

      0 rows returned

  3. Wrong interpretation. by ffkom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People are concerned also in practice, not just in theory. But many lack the will power or are outright too lazy to take the appropriate measures.

    Saying that people are not practically concerned about privacy is like saying smokers are not practically concerned about their health. Most definitely are, they are just too addicted and lack the will power to quit that known hazardous habit.

    1. Re:Wrong interpretation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm happy for all smokers to move to another country to burden their publicly funded health system instead.

    2. Re:Wrong interpretation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey bro, free lungs is socialism. Taxing cigarettes, also socialism. Health care being denied for pre-existing conditions, that's just awesome. Dropping people who get sick is what this country was founded on, Medica.

    3. Re:Wrong interpretation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The smokers are doing it because they have a psychological and psyiological dependance on the drug; nobody smokes for the pure pleasure of it, they do it because they are addicted to the stress nicotine creates.

      The users of Facebook use it because they have a psychological and sociological dependance on the drug; they can't get off facebook because their friends are on there, with withdrawl symptoms including fewer social encounters.

      What we really need to do is quantify, exactly, the difference between advertising and psychological warfare, and make the ladder criminal. You watch advertising for a week, you get an education on where the market is at and what products are better\worse. You watch psychological warfare-laced advertising, you become the product. And what do we do with the products once we are done with them? Literally it turns people into trash.

    4. Re: Wrong interpretation. by ememisya · · Score: 1

      Well I can understand how speaking out for privacy can cause you to lose your privacy. Not unlike the "Do Not Track Me" feature, you are calling attention to yourself not to call attention to yourself, even if that is a donation. You may find that your inbox is full of spam due to a petition you signed or a donation you made. Most people just look at the issue and go, I think staying away from the issue entirely is a better solution personally. Almost like going, "Hey! It's me! Don't track me!"

    5. Re:Wrong interpretation. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      People are concerned also in practice, not just in theory. But many lack the will power or are outright too lazy to take the appropriate measures.

      It's not lacking the willpower, it's lacking the overall concern. Are people concerned about their privacy? Yep. Are people willing to sell it in exchange for a product that can't be had any other way? Also Yes.

      There's no dichotomy between theory and practice here.

  4. Where is the actual study? Zero links to data. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "71% said that they were willing to give up privacy to get access to what technology can offer." - Of the idiots who wanted to give a fuck for $50 and answer your survey at all, of course? Derp.

    Fuck this bullshit Axios story until they link to the study that may or may not exist or be credible.

  5. Dupes to the left... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dupes to the right...
    Dupes above...
    Dupes below...

    100% of Slashdot commenters are concerned about duplicate articles (In Theory, Not Practice).

  6. In theory by nickovs · · Score: 1

    "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is." Yogi Berra

    --
    If intelligent life is too complex to evolve on its own, who designed God?
  7. Dupe by ls671 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Dupe from 5 posts ago on the front page :(

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    1. Re:Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The editors only kinda, sorta care about dupes.

  8. Slashdot is kinda sorta concerned about dupes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But not really...

    https://yro.slashdot.org/story/19/02/25/187243/consumers-kinda-sorta-care-about-their-data

    CAPTCHA: sincere :)

  9. It's the questions, actually by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

    Asking whether we care about anonymized traffic tracking is one thing, but the cold hard reality is that the actual traffic collection systems record your actual plate and indicator and cell and aren't actually anonymized.

    So if you ask people if it's ok for them to know traffic patterns, they say sure.

    But if you ask if it's ok for police officers to get information without a warrant, including pictures of your face and the exact times you are travelling, coordinated with the visit to the liquor store and who was in your car, they say no.

    Stop being p3rvY

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:It's the questions, actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt most of the people asked REALLY even knew what privacy is. If the don't know about EFF, European data laws, Facebook or Google or what was stolen/collected and aggregated. Even the flat earth society is getting new members.
      The way to get a correct response is to show them their 'Dossiers' - then ask the question.

  10. Privacy is only of concern by guruevi · · Score: 1

    when money can be made off it by suing someone. So yeah 'the public' (lawyers) are really interested in privacy. The majority of people never cares or more importantly, understands, how their data is shared as long as it's not embarrassing them personally or they can accrue some benefits of it.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  11. Um, wait... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    So what sort of 'actions' would we expect people to be taking here? In an environment where a huge chunk of vendors are dirty, the details are complex enough that you have to be a paranoid nerd practically full time to know them; and EULAs apparently make just about anything legal where are we expecting the moderately privacy-concerned to be going?

    Going with the 'consumer choices reveal minimal interest in privacy' angle would be one thing if we could compare between known good and known bad actors with slightly different prices; or if, say, voluntarily engaging with Facebook were the only way to end up interacting with them; but as it is we are in the (somewhere between uninformative and downright deceptive) position of basically saying that everyone not bugging out to go live in a unibomber cabin off the grid somewhere clearly just doesn't care about privacy.

    1. Re:Um, wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its actually worse than that. Rendering your devices (whatever device it may be...i.e. phone, computers, tablets, TV's, smart speakers, etc), totally 'private' makes the devices virtually useless.

      So while you can throttle the privacy leaks, you can't remove them totally. Best you can do regardless is muddy the waters with erroneous data. Shit beiing worth shit, that currently is the preferrable method.

  12. Info overload? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Perhaps not enough of their friends have been majorly burned or not enough news stories about burned people have been shown to make them focus. There's a lot of potential problems floating around that all vie for our attention: pollution, climate change, additives, old meat in one's fridge, traffic accidents, termites, overdue re-roofing, physical home security, insurance scams, fake news, upgrading from Windows XP, remembering to make data back-ups, etc.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  13. Longer than Hamlet by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The idea that people can read and understand terms and conditions is ridiculous. The idea that people knowingly agree to Ts and Cs is a lie. The Ts&Cs are too long for even a lawyer to read:
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...

    Read and get all the details buried in a document longer than Hamlet, including all the little nuances? Not realistic.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:Longer than Hamlet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the things that is desperately needed is for the legal system to change the standards of what's considered enforceable to demand that the contracts and licenses be comprehensible by the people that they're expecting to be bound by them. Or, really a typical 13 year old.

      As long as the courts pretend like everybody has the money to consult an attorney before clicking through an agreement or that everybody has a viable alternative to agreeing, the abuses will continue.

      Unfortunately, judges tend to care very little about justice and a lot more about interesting technicality and corner cases.

    2. Re:Longer than Hamlet by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The idea that people can read and understand terms and conditions is ridiculous. The idea that people knowingly agree to Ts and Cs is a lie. The Ts&Cs are too long for even a lawyer to read:
      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...

      Read and get all the details buried in a document longer than Hamlet, including all the little nuances? Not realistic.

      Hence why these documents are not enforceable in court. In the UK you have the legal concept of the "reasonable man" and that any contract must be understandable by the reasonable man in order to be enforceable. At best they protect the company against being sued by their customers, but even then it doesn't magically indemnify them, especially against consumer rights.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    3. Re:Longer than Hamlet by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Read and get all the details buried in a document longer than Hamlet, including all the little nuances? Not realistic.

      Well I wouldn't mind quite that much if there was one version of Hamlet or even a reasonable family tree of licenses with proper revision control. Reality is though that ever company writes their own Hamlet-like book copy-pasting vast amounts of boilerplate but putting their own twist on it. And they'll randomly and without warning make some minor edit on it and ask you to re-agree to the whole agreement without any indication what has changed. Something like the CC licenses but for commercial terms or at least some predefined sections so you know this "no warranty"/"no liability" clause is exactly like all the other clauses. In the summary they could be like "COTS-NW-NL-something-something 2.0" instead of:

      5. Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer

      UNLESS OTHERWISE MUTUALLY AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES IN WRITING AND TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, LICENSOR OFFERS THE WORK AS-IS AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE WORK, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT, OR THE ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER DEFECTS, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OF ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT DISCOVERABLE. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO THIS EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

      6. Limitation on Liability. EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT WILL LICENSOR BE LIABLE TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THIS LICENSE OR THE USE OF THE WORK, EVEN IF LICENSOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

      Maybe that all needs to be there in law and there'd be many necessary variations, but if you could at least make it a one-liner that the license is "COTS-NW-NL-FOO-BAR-HAHA-NELSON-WAS-HERE-EAT-MY-SHORTS 2.0" you'd at least know it didn't contain any fucked up shit this one company tried to pull on you. Or if you have a legitimate need for special clauses, maybe people would actually read them.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Longer than Hamlet by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, courts in the USA have already ruled that its permissible for contracts to state one thing in the summary and contradict it in the details, with the detailed version controlling.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  14. Privacy is not... by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

    ... an individual problem. The fibre optic cable we've laid over the planet has given private businsses trivial ability to defraud and force policies on the population. Online drm in videogames and the theft of PC games more generally over the last 20 years starting with rebadging PC RPG's as mmo's and steam in 2004 with half life.

    The public cannot hope to defend itself when they are 100's of miles away from these companies. The idea that any one individual can hope to fight off the attacks of every company on the globe is nuts. Nobody is "free to choose" anything, reality is pre-internet people got physical products shipped to them that provided them privacy, now everything is tracked and monitored because it is delievered online. The very act of watching a video on hulu, youtube or any other videosite means they know where you live, your IP address, etc. You can't expect the public to fight off companies who have billions of dollars that also pay other companies to pro actively deanonymize their users. The individual does not have the time, expertise or monetary resources to fight off the entire corporate sector. It's whole thoguht process is not even wrong.

  15. Morale isn't improving... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not like they don't beat everyone down with the nailboard, or make better ladders when people install fences to keep them out.

    Seriously though, if you compare 'Evercookies' to physical trespass, you'd be seeing signs saying beware of dog, no trespassing, gates and fences 8 feet tall, barbwire on top, and concrete buried underneath, and them claiming "well you should have had guard towers and snipers" or "well there's no specific law against it" when cutting through the fence wire or removing boards.

    This is similiar to the cache-line abuse ala Spectre, where ever thread would need it's own cache, but instead every site needing it's own browser profile. Which BTW does nothing for Panopticon's method unless you're running some widely-used OS and browser version and hardware with the default fonts and plugins. XD

  16. I practice what I preach... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Via APK Hosts File Engine 2.0++ 64-bit for Linux/BSD h t t p : / / a p k . i t - m a t e . c o . u k / A P K H o s t s F i l e E n g i n e F o r L i n u x . z i p

    Yields more security/speed/reliability/anonymity vs. any 1 solution (99% of threats use hostnames vs. IP address most firewalls use) more efficiently/FASTER + NATIVELY 4 less!

    Vs. "Bolt on 'MoAr' illogic-logic" slowing u hosts speed u up 2 ways: Adblocks + Hardcode fav. sites u spend most time @ vs. competition w/ security bugs (DNS/AntiVir) + overheads slowing u (messagepass 'souled-out' to advertisers easily detected & blocked addons + firewall filtering drivers) & their complexity leads to exploit!

    * ONLY 1 of its kind in GUI 4 Linux/BSD (soon 4 MacOS)!

    (Better vs. Windows model)

    APK

    P.S.=> Protects vs. scripts/trackers (kernelmode faster vs. usermode slower NoScript vs. 3rd party script)/ads/DNS request tracking + redirect poisoned or downed DNS/botnets/malware download/malcript/email malicious payload

    1. Re:I practice what I preach... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We know. You preach bad security methods and practice them in full.

  17. Irony that these websites talk about privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I find it ironic that these three websites are reporting on if people care about privacy while the same websites share the web page visit with so many third parties.

    • axios.com
      • googletagsservices.com
      • googletagmanager.com
    • motherboard.vice.com
      • doubleclick.net
      • googletagservices.com
      • googletagmanager.com
      • indexww.com
      • sharethrough.com
      • adsafeprotected.com
      • krxd.net
      • mtiFontTrackingcode.js
    • fortune.com
      • scorecardresearcher.com
      • metrics.brightcove.com
      • segment.io
      • timecommerce.net
      • demdex.net/Adobe Audience Manager
      • liadm.com
      • doubleclick.net
      • pippio.com
      • betrad.com
      • imrworldwide.com
      • globalwebindex.net
      • bounceexchange.com
      • cloudfront.net
      • krxd.net
      • dianomi.com
      • outbrain.com
      • sharethrough.com
  18. In other words... by doom · · Score: 1

    In other words, they want government to save them from themselves, right?

    1. Re:In other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's your alternative? It's more or less a full-time job trying to keep up with the latest ways in which scummy companies invade your privacy. We've tried market based solutions to this and they don't work. Not even a little bit. A totalitarian regime would have a challenge trying to be more invasive in the monitoring of online traffic.

  19. People have been concerned about smog in theory... by EMB2000 · · Score: 1
    And yet almost none of them seem willing to give up their own cars. I guess they don't care in practice.

    People say they're concerned about their use of heroin, and yet they keep using heroin. I guess they don't care in practice.

    Eventually people will take action on privacy, by electing politicians who will meaningfully regulate the big tech monopolies. Collective action is required here.

  20. What actions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... you'd think people would take actions in response to companies ...

    What actions?

    The US courts claim it's no longer your data, thus consequentially, those corporations owe you nothing. Turn-off data collection? How many corporations explain how to do that, or what data they're collecting? It's reached the point that even Facebook wants data collection disabled (because medical/financial data brings legal liability). Begin a class action? With the result that 10 years later, one receives a discount voucher for the next purchase: That's not useful compensation and it's not a punishment to corporate managers.

    This is why legislative action is required: The consumer has no leverage over mega-corporations that control daily activities.

  21. article summarized by astrofurter · · Score: 1

    Article summarized:

    Mugging-industry shills write report saying most people in theory don't want to get mugged, but since most of them have not yet learned Krav Maga and several other martial arts, _clearly_ they don't really mind getting mugged.

  22. Heisenberg Principle by ememisya · · Score: 1

    Is it possible that people seeking privacy value their privacy?

  23. I'm concerned... by sajavete · · Score: 1

    ... about murder in theory as well, but not in practice.

  24. and financial transactions, too? by mad7777 · · Score: 1

    With all the fuss over Facebook or whatever, why isn't anyone talking about the persistence of people's credit card transactions?

    That Playboy subscription your bought in college? That bong you bought at your local dispensary? Those psychiatric services you received? If, for some strange reason, you didn't pay cash, then it's all on your permanent record.

    Sure, we all love and trusts banks with our lives... but do they share this information with third parties? If not today, then maybe tomorrow? Plus, all this information will be shared with the government upon request (and we all trust whoever happens to be in charge, too, obviously).

    I prefer to pay cash, if that's still possible.

    --
    Might makes right irrelevant.
  25. This closes the circle by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    It is well known that vendors pay lip service to security. That's because dealing with security issues, when they happen, is cheaper than having to do what it takes to prevent them. And that's because nothing much reality happens when they take place - witness Equifax, who had a catastrophic breach, but they are still very much in business. And nothing much happens because end users also pay lip service to these issues. As long as it does not happen to me alone, I am in the same boat as all the others. Who cares?

  26. No one actually gives a crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This privacy panic is just bullshit. No one can even explain what they mean and fear mongers tell flat out lies to encourage the delusion. People want to feel like victims these days and some ephemeral concept of "privacy violations" are just a good as any to nerd rage out too. Most people still spread flat out lies like "Google sells your data". Everyone wants to be outraged but no one actually wants to look at the situation with a clear head. And it doesn't help that certain fan club members need the scare tactics to make themselves feel better about their otherwise unremarkable purchases.

    MS13 in immigrant caravans and "OMG Privacy!" scares. Same crap.

  27. BS story to sway the opninons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Outright lies, just to manipulate opinions into not caring about it.

    Everybody wants their privacy very much so.

    Shitheads all around spewing their shit on the internet. Bunch of chinese dictators think they can have the world as their fucktoy.

  28. Security pros etc. QUOTED on hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "classic Windows hosts trick to block the Coinhive or Crypto-Loot domains" - https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/a-new-player-joins-coinhive-on-the-browser-cryptojacking-scene/ - BLEEPING COMPUTER

    ZD NET http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-use-a-hosts-file-to-improve-your-internet-experience/ "Hosts files really shine by letting you block ads, spyware sites, malware sites, & tracking sites"

    SANS ("A related approach to the DNS issue is to create a hosts file on each system that sends requests for spyware to some place else" hosts by myself & RAMU right @ START of "malware explosion" mid 2005 on) https://isc.sans.edu/forums/di...

    Aryeh Goretsky/ESET/NOD32: hosts = good security https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7442373&amp.cid=49747129/

    Oliver Day (SYMANTEC/SECURITYFOCUS) http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491/

    Spybot S&D uses hosts!

    APK

    P.S.=> Malwarebytes' hpHosts hosts & RECOMMENDS my program forum.hosts-file.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4290

  29. Hosts efficacy recently vs. threats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & results in https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://linux.slashdot.org/com... https://news.slashdot.org/comm... https://apple.slashdot.org/com... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://search.slashdot.org/co... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... https://apple.slashdot.org/com... https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... https://science.slashdot.org/c... https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...

    * That's only recently while I've been on Linux (July 2018) & 100's of times vs. MANY other botnets/malwares etc. in the past circa 2006-early 2018 while I was on Windows: CONCRETE VERIFIABLE UNDENIABLE REALITY (see those links as proof). ... & that's ONLY what /. reported on (there were FAR more)

    APK

    P.S.=> "It's working: Neville... it's working!" - "I AM LEGEND" + HOSTNAME USE IS DOWN IN MALWARE https://unit42.paloaltonetwork... (my ACT OF FAITH is JUSTIFIED by fact)... apk

  30. Even CHINA copied me (vs. DNS down/redirected) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who did it 1st: China or me? I did - dates are my proof https://theregister.co.uk/2017... w/ the FACT China rampantly STEALS U.S. Intellectual properties & military secrets!

    * IMITATION truly IS the SINCEREST FORM of FLATTERY!!!

    (... & proves hosts work vs. DNS faults in tracking you via dns request logs (since you avoid it & resolve FASTER locally using hosts) + DNS being downed OR Kaminsky REDIRECT security flaw misdirected poisoned (or vs. DNSChanger))

    US DHS issues DNS redirect is HUGE danger (not w/ hosts vs.) https://threatpost.com/gov-war... & ICANN ISSUES SAME WARNING https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...

    APK

    P.S.=> Folks, It's NOT EASY being "World-Class" like me (lol - 200,000++ users prove it for me) - enjoy the fruits of my labors for FREE + going FASTER/SAFER/MORE RELIABLY online (w/ a bit more anonymity too via my program)... apk

  31. In theory, there is no difference... by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.

    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/...

  32. No way out by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    We the people aren't concerned "in practice" because there is literally no way to opt out of data sharing. There are all kinds of services that we use every day on condition of being willing to allow the vendor to use and share data about us. Pretty much all of the WWW relies on advertising, which is one big privacy breach. Go ahead, try an ad-blocker, see how well that works for you. Try NoScript, the Web suddenly becomes inaccessible to you.

    What's a person to do? Get angry? What's the point?