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.

8 of 62 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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! --
  5. 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!
  6. 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.