This is apples to oranges. Most users, use applications because they find about it from trusted sources. They are more interested in just using the application and moving on. Users have shown time and again that as long as the source is trusted (friends, media, overhyping blogs) then they leave it up to the company to make sure their data is private. Calling to a challenge of posting everything to public is misstating what users actually provide: a permission to take their data and keep it private versus here is my data for the rest of the world to see. There is a social contract between the user and the company that is bound by the trust that "my info will not be leaked" and looking at the history of the web I think the companies backed by competent teams take this contract very seriously.
3 comments
So it's okay that Twitter, Facebook, Path, etc, all have my contact list and possibly more? The point isn't that users trust they are keeping the data safe, its that they took it without asking up front. Those apps may be out to make its users lives easier, but I would like to know when they are taking my personal data and keeping it for 18 months in an archive
Either way, TC was/is lame. PandoDaily is too.
Either way, TC was/is lame. PandoDaily is too.
It is not okay in the legal sense. But it has been given a green light far too many times by tacit approval of the users who could care less so long as the info is not leaked.
In what bizarro world do consumers trust companies that steal their private data without permission?
Companies I trust don't break the law and violate my privacy. Contract, especially unwritten "social" contracts don't override the law.
Companies I trust don't break the law and violate my privacy. Contract, especially unwritten "social" contracts don't override the law.
Theoretically speaking, in every conceivable world, would the users not trust the companies who steal their data. However, practically speaking, users trust the companies who "steal" their data so long as that data is not publicized/leaked. In fact, I would argue as much that most users know that there is information being collected of them that they are not aware of, and they have accepted it because they haven't seen huge negative consequences in their personal life or in the media that make them worried of the collection of their information.
In my opinion, it would have to take a data breach of the likes of katrina, tsunami 2004 and BP oil spill all within a few weeks for users to get hammered with the point that they should be more concerned about what is happening with their data.
Having said that, there will always be a small group who would be up in arms about the simple act of stealing whether a negative consequence follows or not. And kudos to them for they are doing a service to us all by keeping an eye on these companies.
The point that I am trying to get across is that the history of the web along with the time consuming nature of reading huge agreements has led to users entering into social contracts of trust with these companies. They could care less about how much you try to alert them. Companies can continue to take one action after another to alert the users of all that the things company will do and the user will merely see that has an obstacle to get to the app and therefore will simply accept/agree robotically and move on. Why?
Users behave in herd mentality, respond to only the most imminent of threats or fear of extremely dire potential consequences. If they see everyone else doing something they will do it too, even if that means you get them to agree to very stiff contracts. They will simply accept it as a way of life and move on.
When creating privacy policies, companies play this balancing act. What to constantly alert a user about, how many of them will actually care, we as a company know that all their data will be protected and not used criminally anyway?
Whatever path, facebook, twitter and others do with our data is irrelevant to most users so long as most of their trusted circles are doing it too. It just isn't a big issue for them as they maneuver around other pressing issues in their lives. Kudos to those few who have made it a big issue and have kept these companies at their toes. Their effort is worth commending and appreciating, and not mocking as has been done by others.
In my opinion, it would have to take a data breach of the likes of katrina, tsunami 2004 and BP oil spill all within a few weeks for users to get hammered with the point that they should be more concerned about what is happening with their data.
Having said that, there will always be a small group who would be up in arms about the simple act of stealing whether a negative consequence follows or not. And kudos to them for they are doing a service to us all by keeping an eye on these companies.
The point that I am trying to get across is that the history of the web along with the time consuming nature of reading huge agreements has led to users entering into social contracts of trust with these companies. They could care less about how much you try to alert them. Companies can continue to take one action after another to alert the users of all that the things company will do and the user will merely see that has an obstacle to get to the app and therefore will simply accept/agree robotically and move on. Why?
Users behave in herd mentality, respond to only the most imminent of threats or fear of extremely dire potential consequences. If they see everyone else doing something they will do it too, even if that means you get them to agree to very stiff contracts. They will simply accept it as a way of life and move on.
When creating privacy policies, companies play this balancing act. What to constantly alert a user about, how many of them will actually care, we as a company know that all their data will be protected and not used criminally anyway?
Whatever path, facebook, twitter and others do with our data is irrelevant to most users so long as most of their trusted circles are doing it too. It just isn't a big issue for them as they maneuver around other pressing issues in their lives. Kudos to those few who have made it a big issue and have kept these companies at their toes. Their effort is worth commending and appreciating, and not mocking as has been done by others.
Exactly. This 'challenge' has absolutely nothin to do with what PandoDaily is talking about. There's a huge difference between giving your information to a trusted company versus just throwing it out in public.