Peak indifference to surveillance


#1

[Permalink]


#2

“given inaccurate information about yourself” is the lowest percent on that chart, but I doubt that is where it belongs. Any time a website asks me for personal info, I was born in 1907 etc.


#3

I sure hope so. The Snowden bombshells being dropped bit by bit is keeping it in the collective conciousness, sure, but so many people easily forget the last tragedy for the next. I don’t know, I’d say the idea that people are finally grasping how big and awful this is, and actually keeping it in mind, is optimistic.


#4

I think they must have some sort of narrow definition for that, like creating fake Facebook accounts with most of your information just slightly wrong to throw off big data or something. I came in 5% below “give a fake name” which would seem to be a subset otherwise.


#5

It’s not the end of surveillance, it’s not even the beginning of the end of surveillance, but it’s the beginning of the beginning of the end of surveillance.

Loth as I am (and it’s unbelievably loth - on the lothness scale its as loth as a loth lothophile at a lothicians convention on lothology) to give any attention to that 'orribly ridiculous churchill dog,

Oh Yes

(But should it be ‘end of the beginning of the end’?).


#6

I figured the other 87% of people were lying.


#7

Perhaps more noteworthy is the survey that graph was based on was taken from July 11-14 of this year, when the Snowden leaks were still fairly fresh news and it seems plausible that the significance of the revelations hadn’t sunk in yet.

Running that survey today would be pretty interesting.


#8

How do you know when “peak indifference” happens? Is there any way to measure it? Is there any actual evidence it’s in the past and not in the future?


#9

From my pal Wordnik:

[quote]
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
See loath, loathly, etc.
adj. strongly opposed.[/quote]

Ah, of course! As for the other part, it’s lovely to roll around in one’s mouth and it would sound SO good coming from someone like <a href=http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0835016/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t4>Mark Strong, but I haven’t the faintest idea what it means:


#10

Difficult to interpret those results, actually.

Because I think that the set of people who care about their online privacy may well significantly overlap with the set of people who lie to, or refuse to answer nosy people who question them about online privacy.


#11

At most it’s the beginning of the end of surveillance that you find out about…


#12

Who cares?


#13

It’s a puppet of a bulldog called churchill that sells insurance.


#14

Thanks! Glad I asked, otherwise I would’ve been watching and rewatching
“Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels,” hoping that it was some bizzarre
cutdown sprung forth from the naturally demented British mind. And again,
I wonder: If science “brought back” an ancient human, would it take more or
less than five minutes of modern television commercials to make that person
think it was better to be dead?


#16

Yeah, 100% of Internet users have given inaccurate information about themselves, it’s just that only 14% admit it.

Seriously, though, this kind of survey is pretty stupid, inasmuch as filling it out honestly is contradictory to half the questions on the instrument.


#17

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.