Submitted title was "Americans' Concern with Privacy and Security Are Declining". Please don't editorialize in submission titles. This is in the site guidelines:
I had that same question, but it's not obviously the case. The article addresses the decline, saying that it's mostly that people aren't worrying so much about identity theft. That sounds plausible, since identity theft is not a top-of-mind issue among the privacy-conscious commenters of HN either.
That plus the fact that the article isn't obviously tendentious makes it likely that the title was chosen by the author to represent the survey findings carefully. If so, it's unfair for an HN submitter to invert it. What would be fair is to post a comment to the thread pointing out the possible discrepancy.
"However, the 2017 survey showed a decline in households reporting concerns and avoiding certain online activities compared with the 2015 survey, which first asked these questions. The proportion of online households reporting privacy or security concerns fell from 84 percent to 73 percent during this period. Similarly, the proportion of online households that said privacy concerns stopped them from doing certain online activities dropped from 45 percent to 33 percent."
This must be a case of boiling the frog slowly. I probably qualify as overly concerned with privacy (some might say obsessed). But even I am feeling the fatigue that comes along with the daily news of data leaks, and stories about untrustworthy leadership (public and private). Or maybe, because of my views, I am more fatigued? Either way, it's exhausting. And I understand why people would just succumb to it all.
I'm rambling, I guess. But I am disappointed in the results of this study. Once I had faith that people would wake up over time. But that faith is slipping away...
If dictatorships showed us one thing- that succumbing to a crumbling away of rights and dignity, does not mean the anger and awareness of ones own status as "disenfranchised cattle" go away. Quite contrary- they just search for other outlets. They lash out against minorities, or against those declared worth a beating till moral improves. (Other nations etc.)
SV blowing the cornucopia made the trumpet loud again.
Im pretty sure that a) demanding SSN/DL would cause a mass exodus that would have a bottom line impact for FB b) FB probably already have it through other data sources matched with your FB history
I advocate for in practice behaving as if it is not possible, and simply saying that production data must be restricted. Exceptions can be made for certain types of aggregate data, but one of the lessons of a lot of people's work is that it's really, really easy to cross the line back to the data being identifiable again without you even knowing you did it.
Also, I don't mean that wikipedia link as a complete explanation per se, but the starting point for a journey, if you want to take it.
That was not the article I expected to read after seeing that title. Did the headline not read the rest? (Edit I am talking about the current title, not the old one).
It's technically accurate but in just two years the data shows a massive decrease in every area of concern bar one (which remained static). Headline should be that "internet users are give up remaining vestiges of privacy security and tact".
What's NTIA's goal here? To get us to the point where we fearlessly do anything online? Trust our big-data overlords? Being a little sceptical, a little fearful of these privacy-nuking business models is not unhealthy.
14 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 46.4 ms ] threadhttps://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
HN should add a forward disclaimer to the documentation acknowledging this practice.
> please use the original title, unless it is misleading
The submitted title there was far closer to the data than the page title.
That plus the fact that the article isn't obviously tendentious makes it likely that the title was chosen by the author to represent the survey findings carefully. If so, it's unfair for an HN submitter to invert it. What would be fair is to post a comment to the thread pointing out the possible discrepancy.
I'm rambling, I guess. But I am disappointed in the results of this study. Once I had faith that people would wake up over time. But that faith is slipping away...
SV blowing the cornucopia made the trumpet loud again.
I'm surprised email and facebook doesn't demand your SSN.
It should be trivial for 99% of companies to anonymize and scramble user data so that employees do not have access to it. There's no reason for it.
It isn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-anonymization
I advocate for in practice behaving as if it is not possible, and simply saying that production data must be restricted. Exceptions can be made for certain types of aggregate data, but one of the lessons of a lot of people's work is that it's really, really easy to cross the line back to the data being identifiable again without you even knowing you did it.
Also, I don't mean that wikipedia link as a complete explanation per se, but the starting point for a journey, if you want to take it.
It's technically accurate but in just two years the data shows a massive decrease in every area of concern bar one (which remained static). Headline should be that "internet users are give up remaining vestiges of privacy security and tact".
What's NTIA's goal here? To get us to the point where we fearlessly do anything online? Trust our big-data overlords? Being a little sceptical, a little fearful of these privacy-nuking business models is not unhealthy.