Users Talk the Talk, But Don't Walk the Walk on Privacy (https://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080811-users-talk-the-talk-but-dont-walk-the-walk-about-privacy.html)
JACQUI CHENG - Ars Technica
Internet users appear to take the concept of privacy online seriously, but their actions don't follow their words very well. AOL surveyed a thousand online consumers in the UK in order to get a feel for their understanding of privacy issues on the Internet and found that while 84 percent said that they would remain tight-lipped about personal details, even more ended up forking them over without any hesitation.
"Our research identified a significant gap between what people say and what they do when it comes to protecting sensitive information online," AOL Chief Privacy Officer Jules Polonetsky said in a statement. That gap was to the tune of 89 percent, which is the fraction of those surveyed who ended up divulging personal income details-"without any pressure or persuasion," says AOL.
Here at the Ars Orbiting HQ, we imagine an amusing scenario where AOL placed the two questions immediately after one another: "1) Would you ever tell someone your income online? 2) What is your annual household income?" Hey, no one ever said Internet users weren't easily distracted by shiny things.
Additionally, AOL found that the more people understood about the risks involved in sharing personal details online, the lower their levels of concern were. This is likely related to beefed up confidence levels-the more people think they know about a topic, the more they think they are awesomely invincible compared to the rest of the population. Earlier this year, security software maker AVG published similar findings when it came to online security. Men tended to be exceptionally confident of their knowledge about security online and their levels of protection compared to women, but AVG found that a third of all users-both men and women-had suffered some form of identity theft.
Not only that, researchers from MIT and Harvard found last year that online banking customers largely ignore most common security cues. Users were happy to log into their bank accounts online even when two-factor authentication systems were nowhere to be found. Part of the test group was even specifically instructed to "behave securely" during the research, but they showed the least secure behavior of all, signaling that banking customers appear to be still rather susceptible to phishing scams, even when educated about how to spot them.
AOL said that its findings would be used as part of the company's privacy education campaign that "features an animated penguin to explain behaviourally targeted advertising for surfers of the Web." (Sounds uh, fascinating.) Through this very basic educational approach, AOL hopes to provide consumers with information about how they can control their online experience, learn about online advertising practices, and opt-out of certain marketing features. "[B]usiness and government will need to offer approaches that recognize that at certain times personalization and data use will be welcomed, and in other cases, users will demand limits on the use of their data," Polonetsky said.
Lenny
08-15-2008, 08:54 AM
Zeno, is this article in response to stealing the identity of a former Wacco member? Oh, wait, you didn't steal it....my bad....you released it. Walk the walk? No, so don't talk the talk.
MsTerry
08-15-2008, 09:32 AM
Zeno has a tendency to not answer private questions or answer personal Q's with quotes from articles and such.
BTW is the whole truth gone now? former?
Zeno, is this article in response to stealing the identity of a former Wacco member? Oh, wait, you didn't steal it....my bad....you released it. Walk the walk? No, so don't talk the talk.
Lenny
08-16-2008, 06:21 AM
I don't see him around. So I suppose he's out. Said he would and now........
Zeno has a tendency to not answer private questions or answer personal Q's with quotes from articles and such.
BTW is the whole truth gone now? former?
Zeno Swijtink
08-16-2008, 07:45 AM
Zeno, is this article in response to stealing the identity of a former Wacco member? Oh, wait, you didn't steal it....my bad....you released it. Walk the walk? No, so don't talk the talk.
As long as Don discussed issues such a drug use that related to his line of work and where he may express opinions counter to his non-profit's Board of Directors I could see that he needed anonymity.
But when he started spreading hate messages unrelated to his line of work his anonymity was just a mask that made him unaccountable and I felt justified to expose his real name. Then he emerge again two days later as "madison," but gave himself away using the same tired language he used when he represented thewholetruth. "madison" now also has unsubscribed.
But I am sure Don will be back since he got quite attached to our mixed bunch.
MsTerry
08-16-2008, 08:16 AM
But when he started spreading hate messages unrelated to his line of work his anonymity was just a mask that made him unaccountable and I felt justified to expose his real name.
Does that mean you are now the Truth Police?
What does it really mean?
If you don't like what someone says you are going to expose them?
Attack the messenger, not the message?
Then he emerge again two days later as "madison," but gave himself away using the same tired language he used when he represented thewholetruth. "madison" now also has unsubscribed. .
that is why we have Barry, non?
MsTerry
08-16-2008, 09:18 AM
Zeno,
I am disappointed in this reply.
We are debating and exchanging ideas or opinions.
What a person looks like or what his name or standing is has no bearing whatsoever on this phenomena.
If Don or anybody else was starting a hate movement, yes by all means expose him. As long as it is just an opinion, not the whole truth, I see no harm in anonymity.
In fact, I think it is important to be exposed to controversial opinions, and be able to find the meaning behind it.
As long as Don discussed issues such a drug use that related to his line of work and where he may express opinions counter to his non-profit's Board of Directors I could see that he needed anonymity.
But when he started spreading hate messages unrelated to his line of work his anonymity was just a mask that made him unaccountable and I felt justified to expose his real name. Then he emerge again two days later as "madison," but gave himself away using the same tired language he used when he represented thewholetruth. "madison" now also has unsubscribed.
But I am sure Don will be back since he got quite attached to our mixed bunch.
Zeno Swijtink
08-16-2008, 09:47 AM
Zeno, is this article in response to stealing the identity of a former Wacco member? Oh, wait, you didn't steal it....my bad....you released it. Walk the walk? No, so don't talk the talk.
Privacy is not the same as anonymity.
Zeno Swijtink
08-16-2008, 09:49 AM
Zeno,
I am disappointed in this reply.
We are debating and exchanging ideas or opinions.
What a person looks like or what his name or standing is has no bearing whatsoever on this phenomena.
If Don or anybody else was starting a hate movement, yes by all means expose him. As long as it is just an opinion, not the whole truth, I see no harm in anonymity.
In fact, I think it is important to be exposed to controversial opinions, and be able to find the meaning behind it.
What you write cannot be completely right. Just imagine that we did not have any identity online. That we all would log in under the same name: Anonymous.
Sylph
08-16-2008, 01:04 PM
What you write cannot be completely right. Just imagine that we did not have any identity online. That we all would log in under the same name: Anonymous.
I am also disappointed, Zeno. Your words seem mean-spirited. I can't recall Don using 'Hate speech' at all. He is very passionate in his beliefs, as are many on this board. He doesn't 'go with the West County flow', but that's no reason to villify him. His posts were thoughtful and interesting most of the time. He sparked debate. Instances of harsh words on his part were usually first provoked by others. He seemed to be very open to new ideas.
Outing him and bringing up some of his candid admissions of past deeds is just wrong. You might consider deleting your post regarding this.
Many on this board are anonymous, including several regulars. I understand why Don wanted to be less 'out there'. There are several reasons I can think of why some may not be comfortable revealing their true identity in an online forum,.
Please, don't attack the person....attack, or challenge, the ideas expressed.
Zeno Swijtink
08-16-2008, 01:44 PM
I am also disappointed, Zeno. Your words seem mean-spirited. I can't recall Don using 'Hate speech' at all. He is very passionate in his beliefs, as are many on this board. He doesn't 'go with the West County flow', but that's no reason to villify him. His posts were thoughtful and interesting most of the time. He sparked debate. Instances of harsh words on his part were usually first provoked by others. He seemed to be very open to new ideas.
Outing him and bringing up some of his candid admissions of past deeds is just wrong. You might consider deleting your post regarding this.
Many on this board are anonymous, including several regulars. I understand why Don wanted to be less 'out there'. There are several reasons I can think of why some may not be comfortable revealing their true identity in an online forum,.
Please, don't attack the person....attack, or challenge, the ideas expressed.
The post that I consider hate speech was referenced in the posting in which I outed him, esp. in the wording "HUSSEIN":
As long as Don discussed issues such a drug use that related to his line of work and where he may express opinions counter to his non-profit's Board of Directors I could see that he needed anonymity.
But when he started spreading hate messages unrelated to his line of work his anonymity was just a mask that made him unaccountable and I felt justified to expose his real name. Then he emerge again two days later as "madison," but gave himself away using the same tired language he used when he represented thewholetruth. "madison" now also has unsubscribed. But I am sure Don will be back since he got quite attached to our mixed bunch.
Well, I must congratulate you for coming out from under the rock. Just who are you to determine hate speech? Did he say something about your mama? Race, gender, orientation, handicap? What? Now that I've calmed down a bit I see you referenced the specific post where YOU determined HE cross YOUR line. Of course if you look carefully, Sara S gave him some LOVE. So are you going to find her and out her as well? And if not, why not?
But more importantly who do you THINK you are in putting his name out here AND justifying it, only to your self, since it does not float with others!
Of course you may not be all together "normal" since you "fingered" out that Madison was the same person. And this simply because your verbal analytical abilities are so keen that you "knew". Sickening. You realized the neural linguistic pathways of the writer and determined it was he! No paranoia there on your part, eh?
I can see you even looked up his Board of Directors!!?!?! And read their mission statement, I suppose, as well as their code of ethics and you determined that Don was in violation of all that simply because his disagreement with most here?
I'll tell you what, buddy. Your head and soul are still in Europe, so why won't we take up a collection and send you back where you came from for good. You have no idea what it is to be able to be free in expression without having some dick-head like you to squash him. That IS how it's done over there, obviously. And for the collection here's my :2cents:
Lenny
08-16-2008, 04:09 PM
Privacy is not the same as anonymity.
Oh. Great. And tell me again how you justified taking BOTH.
I can google him, find his face, his family's face, his place of employment, and you......what? justify that because he doesn't like Obama?
You're a puke. I once respected you as an intelligent and compassionate man, but I was only half right. The plain fact is intelligence is not a sign of character nor a virtue, like integrity, ethics or compassion.
MsTerry
08-16-2008, 05:11 PM
As has been pointed out before, this medium is mainly synonymous with anonymous. As far as I am concerned everybody IS logging in under the same name. Even if I know their faces, they remain Anonymous to me,knowing nothing about their life, their circumstances etc.
A face and a voice in Wacco-land, nothing more for the most part.
Zeno, I suspect that the travel has gotten to you.
Your clarity and balance seem to be affected.
At your age it must not be so easy to be taken out of your comfort-zone. Traveling with two teenagers is challenging at any age.
Unless, of course, you have changed to Vino, Zeno?
What you write cannot be completely right. Just imagine that we did not have any identity online. That we all would log in under the same name: Anonymous.
Sylph
08-16-2008, 05:20 PM
intelligence is not a sign of character nor a virtue, like integrity, ethics or compassion.
One might argue that intelligent people have a greater responsibility to be compassionate, to live up to a code of ethics? For some reason, I think it's more of an affront when 'intelligent' people act poorly.
MsTerry
08-16-2008, 08:10 PM
Lenny,
You are not too compassionate yourself here.
We all make a slip every now and then, but that doesn't make us despicable.
Zeno didn't ask you to put him up on a pedestal........................
Oh. Great. And tell me again how you justified taking BOTH.
I can google him, find his face, his family's face, his place of employment, and you......what? justify that because he doesn't like Obama?
You're a puke. I once respected you as an intelligent and compassionate man, but I was only half right. The plain fact is intelligence is not a sign of character nor a virtue, like integrity, ethics or compassion.
MsTerry
08-16-2008, 08:11 PM
One might argue that intelligent people have a greater responsibility to be compassionate, to live up to a code of ethics? For some reason, I think it's more of an affront when 'intelligent' people act poorly.
It does seem that way, but is it fair?
Lenny
08-17-2008, 01:10 PM
One might argue that intelligent people have a greater responsibility to be compassionate, to live up to a code of ethics? For some reason, I think it's more of an affront when 'intelligent' people act poorly.
You make a good point, but then maybe it is not the case, as in this issue. One could argue that many of the great monsters of the 20th century were intelligent, but still responsible for the deaths of over 100 million.
Many CEO's have similar scores in "personality" tests as sociopaths. Both categories may be intelligent, but lack the ability to "walk a mile in my shoes". Of course that is what allows CEOs to cut the air off of whole companies of people. Or generals to be "satisfied" with only 7% troop loss in a heavy battle.
We can only "expect more" from people of character, in other words.
Lenny
08-17-2008, 01:39 PM
Lenny,
You are not too compassionate yourself here.
We all make a slip every now and then, but that doesn't make us despicable.
Zeno didn't ask you to put him up on a pedestal........................
You are right. As was pointed out, Z is not stupid. But I simply ran out of compassion at this point for people that don't allow others the freedom to express. That ain't American. We all miss the mark, slip, screw up etc, but to deliberately out some one, and from his post to me it seems he is willing to have Don fired since he mentions the board of directors. All this for not liking Obama, and thinking that a hate crime. I would well think Don deals with more Black Men in a week than Z has dealt with in the past five years! And from what I know about those mission-type places, all those are the men that are called every name under the sun and are rejected in every instance by folks like Z. And Don probably has put his arm around and talked to more of those guys than Z will ever know!
I can only hope for compassion in this issue as I know my "rigid righteousness" will not help a single soul. And you are right, I did have Z on some kind of pedestal. Look at the guy, he's from some other country and came here; that speaks a lot in my book as he left his comfort zone and moved to a foreign land. Then he's some kind of professor at a university. That shows tenacity to put up with all the crap given in school to achieve that high mark. And he posts thoughtful articles, with retorts to my rants that are clear, cool and thoughtful. And then he goes and pulls a boner like this? Yeah, he was a hero of mine. Might be a guy thing. Don't care. I will consider that his 13 hour jet lag, as I know it well (food was great for air food, but that is Air France!) as well as traveling with two teen girls (on no one would I wish that) could have played a part in his lack of judgment. However in dealing and searching for my compassion I usually have notions of acknowledgment of a wrong-doing. From his posts I do not get that. There is no point of reconciliation with anyone that has posted regarding this upset, and I see none. So, I know compassion is not contingent upon another, while scorn is; and I suppose I am the weaker one since his action has caused this calumny on my part. He was wrong but feels he is right. And that makes it doubly wrong. No, Ms T, no compassion today. We are both sorry for such.