Wether that's wise or not is definitely up for debate. I think we'd be much better off instilling a higher value for privacy than we'd be trying to legislate and regulate the problem away. Companies will find ways to skirt legal measures, but an evaporating user base cannot be ignored.
I don't think that is "very fair to say." For instance, you might also claim that "you average citizen" does not care about having a right to a fair trail and a whole host of other good things. If you have any evidence to back up your assertion, it's probably confounded by interference from people's other priorities and problems.
To get a truly accurate sense of how much "your average user" cares about privacy, you need to control for both the ignorance of some users and the likely sense of helplessness of others. It's weaselly to say that someone with undiagnosed cancer doesn't care about having cancer, just because they don't know they have it, for instance. To truly understand how they feel, you have to tell them their diagnosis, and maybe even explain cancer and its implications to them.
> I think we'd be much better off instilling a higher value for privacy than we'd be trying to legislate and regulate the problem away. Companies will find ways to skirt legal measures, but an evaporating user base cannot be ignored.
You could make the same case against antipollution regulation, and it would be just as weak as you argument against privacy regulation. Your proposed solution is fatally undermined by a collective action problem [1]. The solution to the problem of companies skirting legal measures is to either amend the measures or sanction the skirting of them -- both things that are often done in functioning governments.
How? How would you control for that without powerfully suggesting potentially desirable outcomes in any sort of interview/survey?
If the general public truly understood how much information they give up and how valuable that information is, people would begin to take these things more seriously.
Users are conditioned to allow access to GPS and Camera without thinking for the sake of using specific features of an app. Combine that with maliciously impenetrable ToS and its hardly surprising that people give away their information so freely.
Because the instances of tangible harm coming to someone from data leaked by Facebook et. al. are few and far between.
>If the general public truly understood how much information they give up and how valuable that information is, people would begin to take these things more seriously.
I think it's intellectually lazy to think that people disagree with you because they don't have all the facts. Most people are aware with the amount of data collected on them. They are somewhat bothered by it, but not bothered enough to make a lot of changes.
Not sure what makes you think this considering the fact that lately there has been at least one data leak outrage story every week from Facebook alone.
>I think it's intellectually lazy to think that people disagree with you because they don't have all the facts. Most people are aware with the amount of data collected on them. They are somewhat bothered by it, but not bothered enough to make a lot of changes.
I appreciate you calling out my platitude but it is funny that you decided to answer with one equally lazy. How do you know? In my experience most younger people are aware, but for people of my parents generation this stuff is a complete mystery.
No, we would not. We would keep skimming over the terms, keep ignoring the connotations. Just like we do now.
That's not great, but it's the userbase you (we) have to live with.
All i'm saying is that if what you were agreeing to was made to be as apparent as it is easy to confirm we might see a shift in user behaviour.