terriko: Evil Soup (evil soup)
[personal profile] terriko
Cross-posted from Web Insecurity

I often get into discussions about whether people really do care about privacy, given that they give away personal information regularly when they share with friends via Facebook or other services. A recent report suggests that people do care, at least when it comes to banking and shopping:


The Edelman study released in February 2012 shows that consumer concerns about data privacy and security are actively diminishing their trust in organizations. For instance, 92% listed data security and privacy as important considerations for financial institutions, but only 69% actually trusted financial institutions to adequately protect their personal information. An even sharper disconnect can be seen with online retailers, with 84% naming security of personal information as a priority but only 33% trusting online retailers to protect it.


The blog of the Office of the Canadian Privacy Commissioner (from which I drew this quote) sums it up in the title: Privacy: Not just good business, but good for business.

But I have to wonder, do these numbers indicate that privacy-preserving businesses will be winning customers, or will we simply see claims of privacy that aren't backed up by carefully constructed systems? Do consumers really care about privacy or do they just say they care? How will consumers evaluate potentially spurious privacy claims? In Canada we at least have the privacy commissioner who brings issues to light, and worldwide we have the Electronic Frontier Foundation, but while both organizations are astute and do their best, privacy claims are something that will need to be evaluated by organizations like Consumer Reports that are used by consumers when making decisions about where they spend and keep their money. Right now, by and large, we only hear about the relative privacy of an organization when a breach occurs.

I attended a talk on Internet voting yesterday and the speaker quoted an official in DC who claimed that, "voters like internet voting, so it must be secure," which is really quite a terrifying quote if you think about it. The speaker joked, "does this mean that because my kid likes cake, it must be healthy?" It really clearly demonstrates first that users of the system have very little understanding of its safety (despite strides in the area, internet voting as currently implemented is rarely secure) but also that officials who roll out such systems have little understanding of the flaws of the system and are much too willing to overlook them for convenience sake. If this is the case with voting, it's hard to believe that business would avoid such cognitive mistakes.

Date: March 29th, 2012 03:10 am (UTC)
ivy: Two strands of ivy against a red wall (Default)
From: [personal profile] ivy
The difficulty in the consumers caring versus saying that they care seems to be at its starkest when it's a choice between function and a vague feeling of distrust, or losing the network effect/sacrificing some function but feeling more assured of privacy. Sadly for privacy, most of the time it seems like the former is the dominant choice. But there are exception cases... Google+ seems to be one.

Have you read "The Consent of the Networked"? I was just discussing that with one of my friends earlier today... I mean to read the book, but thus far have only read the article, which didn't contain much new for me.

Profile

terriko: (Default)
terriko

September 2014

S M T W T F S
 123456
78 910111213
141516 17181920
21222324252627
282930    

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 18th, 2014 03:36 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios