The illusion of privacy from Google and Facebook
These and other companies say that the erosion of privacy is inevitable - but they themselves are working on it.
In January, Facebook executive director Mark Zuckerberg announced the end of the era of privacy. A month later, the head of Google, Eric Schmidt, expressed a similar opinion . Add the comments of Scott McNeely and Larry Ellison many years ago, and you will see a bunch of technical CEOs declaring the disappearance of privacy, especially for young people.
This is simply not true. People, including the younger generation, still care about privacy . Yes, they are much more open on the Internet than their parents: they post personal details on Facebook, shameful photos on Flickr and intimate comments on Twitter. But they take measures to protect their privacy and protest loudly when they feel that it is being violated. They are not technically savvy and make mistakes all the time, but this is the fault of companies and websites that are trying to manipulate the audience for their financial gain.
For the older generation, privacy was in secrecy. And, as the Supreme Court decided, as soon as something ceases to be secret, it is no longer considered private . But privacy is not at all about it, young people perceive it not so. Privacy is control. When your medical records are sold to a pharmaceutical company without permission; when a social network changes profile settings and what was previously visible only to friends, it becomes visible to everyone; when the NSA scans all emails in a row - a problem in losing control over information. We open our lives and thoughts without any problems, but we want to clearly control how, where and to whom. Lack of privacy is a lack of control.
')
The attitude of people to privacy is socially confusing. The details are decided : people are more inclined to protect privacy if they think about it, and less inclined if they think about something else. Social networking sites know this and constantly remind people how fun it is to share photos, comments and conversations, minimizing privacy risks. Some sites go even further and deliberately hide information about how little control - and privacy - the user has over his data. We all refuse privacy when we stop thinking about it.
The herd reflex also influences: we are more inclined to give out personal information when others do it. The harm from loss of privacy outweighs the pros. Even if we have no control over our data, the illusion of control convinces us. And we do not appreciate the risks . Various academic studies confirm this conclusion.
The problem is this: every company whose CEO speaks out about privacy makes money controlling large amounts of user data. Through targeted advertising, cross-selling of related services or simply convincing users to spend more time on the site and invite friends, the more information is published for the largest number of people - the greater the profit. Thus, these companies are interested in the step-by-step reduction of privacy in their services, at the same time proclaiming the erosion of privacy inevitable and creating an illusion of control for users.
You can see these forces in action on the example of launching Google Buzz. This is a Twitter-style chat service, and when Google launched it in February, the recipients from your mailbox were laid out in the open contact list because of the default settings. Yes, users could change these settings, but - and Google knew this - the change was difficult and most people accepted the default settings, especially if they wanted to just try a new service. People were upset that their previously private contact list from the mail service had suddenly become public. The representative of the Federal Trade Commission even threatened with fines . And although Google changed the default settings, it left a sense of resentment.
Facebook used a similar method to intercept control when it changed the default privacy settings last December, making them more open. Although people could, theoretically, keep the previous settings, it took effort. Many went to the site and just wanted to talk with friends, so they agreed to the new settings without hesitation.
Facebook has a whole story of similar tricks. In 2006, they released News Feeds , changing the way they view friends feeds. There was no change in privacy settings, because there was nothing open to the public in excess of what was available before, but the change was in control of the information or, probably, in the illusion of such control. However, there was a big noise . And Facebook is doing it again: last month, the company announced new changes in privacy rules that facilitate the collection of geolocation data about users and the sale of this information to third parties.
With such an erosion of privacy, those CEOs may indeed be right, but only because they themselves are working to kill privacy. On the Internet, our ability to protect personal information is limited by the settings that these companies give us and how easy it is to find them. We have Gmail and Facebook accounts, because now there is communication there, and it is difficult - especially for the younger generation - not to participate in this. Until the privacy settings are evident, and as long as these companies are allowed to forcibly change social norms by restricting options, people will gradually lose their privacy step by step. There is no evil intent here, it is simply the action of market forces. If we believe that privacy is important for society and necessary for democracy, freedom and human dignity, then for its preservation we cannot rely on the market mechanism. The only solution is to adopt detailed privacy protection laws that would guarantee people control over their personal data.
In January, Facebook executive director Mark Zuckerberg announced the end of the era of privacy. A month later, the head of Google, Eric Schmidt, expressed a similar opinion . Add the comments of Scott McNeely and Larry Ellison many years ago, and you will see a bunch of technical CEOs declaring the disappearance of privacy, especially for young people.
This is simply not true. People, including the younger generation, still care about privacy . Yes, they are much more open on the Internet than their parents: they post personal details on Facebook, shameful photos on Flickr and intimate comments on Twitter. But they take measures to protect their privacy and protest loudly when they feel that it is being violated. They are not technically savvy and make mistakes all the time, but this is the fault of companies and websites that are trying to manipulate the audience for their financial gain.
For the older generation, privacy was in secrecy. And, as the Supreme Court decided, as soon as something ceases to be secret, it is no longer considered private . But privacy is not at all about it, young people perceive it not so. Privacy is control. When your medical records are sold to a pharmaceutical company without permission; when a social network changes profile settings and what was previously visible only to friends, it becomes visible to everyone; when the NSA scans all emails in a row - a problem in losing control over information. We open our lives and thoughts without any problems, but we want to clearly control how, where and to whom. Lack of privacy is a lack of control.
')
The attitude of people to privacy is socially confusing. The details are decided : people are more inclined to protect privacy if they think about it, and less inclined if they think about something else. Social networking sites know this and constantly remind people how fun it is to share photos, comments and conversations, minimizing privacy risks. Some sites go even further and deliberately hide information about how little control - and privacy - the user has over his data. We all refuse privacy when we stop thinking about it.
The herd reflex also influences: we are more inclined to give out personal information when others do it. The harm from loss of privacy outweighs the pros. Even if we have no control over our data, the illusion of control convinces us. And we do not appreciate the risks . Various academic studies confirm this conclusion.
The problem is this: every company whose CEO speaks out about privacy makes money controlling large amounts of user data. Through targeted advertising, cross-selling of related services or simply convincing users to spend more time on the site and invite friends, the more information is published for the largest number of people - the greater the profit. Thus, these companies are interested in the step-by-step reduction of privacy in their services, at the same time proclaiming the erosion of privacy inevitable and creating an illusion of control for users.
You can see these forces in action on the example of launching Google Buzz. This is a Twitter-style chat service, and when Google launched it in February, the recipients from your mailbox were laid out in the open contact list because of the default settings. Yes, users could change these settings, but - and Google knew this - the change was difficult and most people accepted the default settings, especially if they wanted to just try a new service. People were upset that their previously private contact list from the mail service had suddenly become public. The representative of the Federal Trade Commission even threatened with fines . And although Google changed the default settings, it left a sense of resentment.
Facebook used a similar method to intercept control when it changed the default privacy settings last December, making them more open. Although people could, theoretically, keep the previous settings, it took effort. Many went to the site and just wanted to talk with friends, so they agreed to the new settings without hesitation.
Facebook has a whole story of similar tricks. In 2006, they released News Feeds , changing the way they view friends feeds. There was no change in privacy settings, because there was nothing open to the public in excess of what was available before, but the change was in control of the information or, probably, in the illusion of such control. However, there was a big noise . And Facebook is doing it again: last month, the company announced new changes in privacy rules that facilitate the collection of geolocation data about users and the sale of this information to third parties.
With such an erosion of privacy, those CEOs may indeed be right, but only because they themselves are working to kill privacy. On the Internet, our ability to protect personal information is limited by the settings that these companies give us and how easy it is to find them. We have Gmail and Facebook accounts, because now there is communication there, and it is difficult - especially for the younger generation - not to participate in this. Until the privacy settings are evident, and as long as these companies are allowed to forcibly change social norms by restricting options, people will gradually lose their privacy step by step. There is no evil intent here, it is simply the action of market forces. If we believe that privacy is important for society and necessary for democracy, freedom and human dignity, then for its preservation we cannot rely on the market mechanism. The only solution is to adopt detailed privacy protection laws that would guarantee people control over their personal data.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/112026/
All Articles