Weighing the Value of Privacy 232
An anonymous reader writes "A new study from HP Labs shows that the reluctance of individuals to reveal private information (or how much money they would demand to do so), depends on how far they perceive themselves to be from the norm. For example, those who think they are overweight ask a higher price to step on a scale in front of their peers, than those of average weight. From the article: 'How and why people decide to transition their information from the private to the public sphere is poorly understood. To address this puzzle, we conducted a reverse second-price auction to identify the monetary value of private information to individuals and how that value is set. Our results demonstrate that deviance, whether perceived or actual, from the group's average asymmetrically impacts the price demanded to reveal private information.'"
Does that mean.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Does that mean.... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't find myself to be abnormal, at least I don't think so. I generally refrain from any kind of survey, I thought everyone does. But I don't have a problem tossing out an email address to get into a "membership" type site. SO I clearly either find the joining of sites as normalized, or email is just disposable.
Show me an APPROVED and CERTIFIED COTS product (Score:3, Insightful)
Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is news now?
Re:Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)
This is possible some of the most useless research I've ever seen. The headline was quite promising and I even downloaded the PDF and skimmed through it, and it turns out that the "example" of weight given in the submission accounts for the whole paper! Oh no wait, they also mention... height. Woohoo. Add some pseudo-statistics and some almost-economic analysis, and wrap up with... absolutely no conclusions whatsoever. For heaven's sake, tell me your theory why this situation should arise! Tell me what implications it has!
I'm actually going to stop now because I can tell be reading what I've written already that I'm far to worked up to be objective about this. But for the love of God, why can't you do research into something that isn't blindingly obvious?
I need to sit down.
"blindingly obvious" Still needs to be proved. (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because something is "blindingly obvious" doesn't mean there shouldn't be proof to back it up.
This report may be crap, but just because something is "obvious" doesn't mean it shouldn't be researched and proofed
Re:Translation: (Score:4, Funny)
"My topic for today is the prevalence of speculation in media. What does it mean? Why has it become so ubiquitous? Should we do something about it? If so, what? And why? Should we care at all? Isn't speculation valuable? Isn't it natural? And so on."
Re:Translation: (Score:2, Funny)
They did, but their results deviated so much from the norm expected that they were hesitant to release their results. :^P
I don't think I'll bother going through the PDF to see how they avoided introducing bias in their subject selection process and testing.
No, you need to learn to skim better. (Score:3, Insightful)
The second auction was for age, not height. (See page 3, paragraph 2.)
When you get the simple facts wrong, people will tend to doubt that you've made valid conclusions.
Re:Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a little harsh. See, psychological research tends to go in small steps. First, someone develops an IQ test. Then, someone finds out that people with higher IQ tend to be more successful in their career later. Suprise? News? Of course not. But then this phenomenon is investigated in more and more detail, and it turns out that an IQ test is the singe most successful criterion to predict career success. And so it makes sense for companies to do IQ tests when selecting new employees. Then you can start optimizing IQ tests for specific job profiles. Etc.
Of course, this is not a very revolutionary paper. But it probably does contain a new idea, namely to measure the value of privacy in monetary terms. And the message of this paper is mainly that this method works. Now they can gradually start trying more sophisticated tests. That will lead to more surprising results.
Re:Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)
value of privacy in monetary terms.
Good point.
It motivates a few follow-on questions:
Re:Translation: (Score:2)
5. And as E911 services come on-line and your complete trajectory becomes available [yahoo.com], how much discount on your cell phone bill will you get if you elect (assuming you can elect) to let your wireless provider release your whereabouts to others (which sounds to me like a perfect time to copyright the information and get onerous misguided laws to work for individuals for a change).
A comment on IQ testing (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Translation: (Score:2)
Well, they've actually quantified some aspects of this. Another poster complained about skimming thru a whole paper, a pdf! Well, it was only 52 KiB, really not that long. Perhaps the mention of words like "log" are repulsive to some...
Also, they point out that strangely enough, people with a weight problem will also consider this has "secret" information.
All in all, I found the paper was a good read.
Re:Translation: (Score:2)
(takes bow)
> complained about skimming thru a whole paper, a pdf!
Hey, my lunchbreak is short. Plus I have a few hundred pages of *actual* research to read after lunch. Most of which contains much worse than the occasional "log" thrown in.
> I found the paper was a good read
I must admit, I think I overreacted. They have a reasonable survey of previous work in the area, and there is something of interest in the asymmetry of the pricing curve. But I'm not sure what else they w
Re:Translation: (Score:2)
Re:Translation: (Score:2)
If you think about it for more then a second, kb could mean a number of things. Some people actually mean kilobit. Some mean 1000 bytes. While others mean 1024 bytes. KiB makes it clear we're not dealing with the "normal" kilo, but with something else, something of a bin
Re:Translation: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Translation: (Score:2)
People far, far too often equate "different" with "faulty" without realizing that it's the differences that do more to fulfill the potential of the human spirit than anything else we know of.
We would be wise to realize this. There is enormous strength in diversity that many people seem not to realize. We should celebrate and encourage diversity in all things. Instead, we are bred to judge and categorize. Watch TV for an hour and tell me how many perfect men and women you see. Literally "o
embarassed... or perhaps afraid (Score:3, Insightful)
For instance, my neighbor might like studded leather and ball-gags, but as long as he's not kidnapping people to participate, and it's all according to Hoyle, then fine... who cares? (truthfully, I'd rather not know about it at all). Being a bit too deviant (or deviant in the wrong way) could lead to unpleasant personal, professional, or financial consequences.
I'd say it's pure self-interest
Re:Translation: (Score:4, Insightful)
For this reason, if no other, broadcast of such findings may be at least educational and may provide some small measure of understanding. Not necessarily a bad thing.
As to the conditioning aspect, my experience is that, although social conditioning does genuinely occur, it will only take where there is already a predisposition to that set of judgements, on a broad social level. Conditioning reinforces beliefs and fears but tends not to be able to create new ones. Unless you are very good at it and can conflate the new belief with one which is already held. Piggy-backing it on the emotional force of the old one.
This is also becoming less uncommon with increased sophistication in manipulating communication coupled with an increased capacity to reach larger audiences.
Humans are social animals and tend to cluster into groups. The formation of groups involves the creation of memes which define the nature of that group. Norms and margins are then set around the degree of closeness to or divergence from those memes.
Slashdot subscribers hold certain patterns as central to our presence here. These may be very different to those of three year olds in a kindergarten (although maybe not - you tell me).
The degree to which we conform to the norms is a direct measure of our conformance with the memes of that social group and by extension a reflection of to what degree we belong to that structure, are accepted by it or even our acceptance of it.
To diverge by more than, say, two standard deviations from the mean, begins to put us into the marginal area.
A desire to be a member of the group, under those circumstances, can bring with it a tension regarding that association. If I interpret my membership as some sort of moral imperative, and if I am predisposed to self criticism, then, yes, I may feel embarrassed by my lack of conformity.
On the other hand, if I am aware of the necessary diversity of a statistical distribution, I may, instead, revel in my individual differences, realising that I am representing a boundary on that group.
All conditions across the spectrum of a distribution will have psychological baggage associated with it. However, the further we move into the margins, the less we experience support from the group - as a part of it rather than as, say compassion, sympathy or even, to take the other end of things, adoration as the other.
I don't see these things as representing a false ideal. Rather an accepted ideal but limited to the context of a given group.
Re:Translation: (Score:2)
Actually I've noticed the opposite. People always talk about their medical ailments.
That's a good point (although no-one will ever see it unless you stop posting as an AC. :))
I wonder whether, if they were to extend their scale further, they would have found that (for example) extremely obese people would suddenly start being less private? That is, the proportionality breaks down when you get to an extreme deviation, where people start to have (for want of a better expression) "no shame"?
So
They want your pity. (Score:2)
Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Why? It's not like your friends can't see that you are fat.
--
In London? Need a Physics Tutor? [colingregorypalmer.net]
American Weblog in London [colingregorypalmer.net]
Re:Why? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
How much it would cost to have yourself and a group of people publicly indexed by your penis size.
Fifty men have their members examined by a doctor and their length recorded. You then get brought out in Times Square and the doctor puts you in order by smallest to largest. I wonder how much money it would take for the average person to participate.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
I think it's the under average people that wouldn't want to participate....
deviance ? (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess it's not the same for underweight.
It all depends on how bad this would be perceived
Obese people will less likely be understood by "normal" people whereas skeletic people will actually be overprotected as the ill people they represent.
Re:deviance ? (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess that is true - especially with respect to obesity. I used to do some obesity-realted research and in the mid 90's I attended a conference on obesity research, where I heard about the following study:
A study was undertaken where people having had a physical handicap (e.g., blindness, missing a limb, deafness etc.) for several years were asked what handicap they would choose instead of their current handicap if they had the chance. Almost all of pa
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Daniel
Re:So... (Score:4, Funny)
I don't think they need a justification for that. But Judging from what it says in the
They will now be able to calculate exactly how much money they have saved by poking their noses into our private thoughts and information without our permission.
MWUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
Uhummm...
Re:So... (Score:2)
Does this mean that based on this study anti-privacy activists (how else to call them) will start saying that "as shown by studies, if you don't want to share your private information, thoughts, etc, it IS because you have something that you think you should hide"? I can totally see this study being used to hassle people who just want some privacy.
That depends on whether one thinks that being "deviant" is a bad thing, and something that others have a right to know about. I would argue it most certainly
Re:So... (Score:3, Insightful)
This thought went through my mind as well.
When I hear someone say that, I ask them if they try on clothes in a dressing room at a department store.
Obviously they answer in the affirmative, and then I ask why...why would they do that, if they h
Re:So... (Score:3, Insightful)
Them: If you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about.
Me: If I haven't done anything wrong why do you need to know?
But then, given the current environment in the US, I guess the whole idea of "presumed innocent until proven guilty" does not apply to thought-criminals.
Do we need more or less privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Whenever I visit a tourist attraction that has a guest register, I always sign it. After all, you never know when you'll need an alibi.
I've been doing this since I was a kid, but these days you don't have to take any positive action to leave a trail behind. Almost everything we do is recorded. Closed-circuit cameras watch us in most public places. Our credit-card purchases, japanese schoolgirl tentacle porn, telephone calls and Web surfing are all tracked these days.
Editorialists have decried these losses of privacy, as if it were the most sacred of human rights. But just what is the value of privacy? Do we really need it? And, indeed, can we afford it? After all, everything from your son's shoplifting to the destruction of the towers at the World Trade Center could have been prevented if we had less of an ability to do things in secret.
Re:Do we need more or less privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
And conversely, those pesky 'founding fathers' and their dreams of a free country could have been prevented if they had less of an ability to do things in secret.
It amazes me to see how quickly people will abandon the very values and principles that America was founded on in order to gain a little extra security. It's here that I would trot out the old 'those who would sacrific freedom for security' yada-yada-yada... but why bother - most of you are so far down the slippry slope already.
Re:Do we need more or less privacy? (Score:3, Insightful)
With more privacy, the group could remain hidden as normal.
What I fear is this:
"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, an
Re:Do we need more or less privacy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Would you be willing to elaborate a little bit on this? In particular, what do you mean by 'secret'? Secret from who - the government or the public, or both? And how would you change the average person's right to privacy in order to prevent bad things from happening?
One of the things that worries me about certain me
Re:Do we need more or less privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whenever I visit a tourist attraction that has a guest register, I always sign it. After all, you never know when you'll need an alibi.
I'm happy to sign such things too, but the important thing is it's my choice. In particular, this means that if I visit somewhere that I'm less open about, I can skip signing the book for that one time. Tracked credit card purchases on the other hand don't ignore that japanese schoolgirl tentacle porn.
After all, everything from your son's shoplifting to the destruction of the towers at the World Trade Center could have been prevented if we had less of an ability to do things in secret.
But everything from being mugged whilst carrying an expensive item, to millions of people who are "different" being sent away to concentration camps and gas chambers could happen if we had less of an ability to keep things private.
Re:Do we need more or less privacy? (Score:5, Interesting)
There are thousands of years of history that show, without exception, that power breeds corruption and abuse. The right to privacy should be considered a counterbalance to power. If those in power obliterate privacy, they do not have to fear the repercussions of their abuse of that power, because they will know where and who may resist them and how they will go about it.
What would Thomas Jefferson say to your comment? We actually have a problem in America today; Many Americans have lately fallen victim to the idea that they should sacrifice their privacy and other essential human rights (primarily those that Jefferson was so proud of) so that the Government can more effectively protect them from terrorists and other such nonsense. The only real effect is that the Government constructs much stronger defenses against it's own people than it had previously.
History has shown that it is significantly more difficult to acquire basic human rights than it is to give them up. History also shows that regardless of the reason for sacrificing them, once sacrificed, they will be exploited for other reasons. These reasons may seem rational at the time, and each new exploitation may be just a small step from the last one. But over time, the civil liberties of a people are chipped away into oblivion with this mindset.
Not only do I disagree with your post, but I believe that because of the growth of information technology combined with our current privacy crisis, America is closing in on an inevitable, new type of rebellion; Today, corporations that manage data and services that are very private to individuals are regulated and controlled with many consequences. One of those consequences is that the Government may tap into the private information flow of it's citizens, be them voice communications, auto-theft gps services, financial records or whatnot. Eventually, ad-hoc, encrypted networks that contain no Government accessible back-doors will spring up. It is even likely that communities such as Slashdot will be where such movements start, and therfore may one day be considered an enemy of the State.. Interesting thought, huh?
Projects such as freenet [sourceforge.net] represent a blow across the bow of this fight for basic privacy rights. I expect that it will eventually become messy, as frustration at not being able to penetrate these networks sweeps through agencies such as the FBI, NSA, IRS, etc.. The Government will probably even try to make such networks illegal at some point and it could take years or decades before the basic rights to privacy return to our lives. But equilibrium will eventually be restored and we will have the ability to be untrackabl
Re:Do we need more or less privacy? (Score:2)
In fact, the illusion that there is truly _no_ privacy.
I don't even mean big "crimes" like open propaganda against the state. Nothing that the secret police would torture you for. But
Second Bid Auction (Score:5, Interesting)
Everyone gets to leave a bid for something. The person giving the highest bid gets to buy for the second highest bid.
This forces the bidders to bid the highest price they would be willing to pay. It's impossible to cheat, as bidding 1 billion for a 100$ object would leave you in a lot of trouble is someone else had the same idea but bid 1 million!
Would people get this if it was an option on ebay?
Re:Second Bid Auction (Score:2, Informative)
Apparently it has, it's called a Vickrey auction. [agorics.com]
I'm sure people would get it, after a few predictable and expensive disasters.
Re:Second Bid Auction (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Second Bid Auction (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Second Bid Auction (Score:3, Funny)
The bids are sealed in the second-highest auction, unlike eBay. Makes a big difference.
Re:Second Bid Auction--that's why not: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if you assume people bid rationally, then 2nd bid auction is the same as a standard auction with small increments, as explained in another post. The only advantage is that it leads to the same result faster.
But part of the point of auctions is that people don't act completely rationally. Let's say there is a really cool _____ that you would like to get. You think
Re:Second Bid Auction (Score:2)
Re:Second Bid Auction (Score:3, Informative)
In the case of second bid auctions (relative to first bid) you are more likely to bid higher, because you know you don't have to pay what you bid. If you win, you pay what the next guy bid. But.. you also know that other people react the same way. So, where as you might've been willing to bid $100 for something under a first bid system, you may goto $110 under second bid. But in second place might've stopped at 90, and would
Re:Second Bid Auction (Score:2, Insightful)
Auctioneer: What bid for this wierd wired widget?
Bidder 1 : $50 (this is what he'll pay if nobody else bids)
Bidder 2 : $1000 (thinking he won't have to pay)
Bidder 1 : $2000 (he doesn't want to pay either)
Bidder 2 : $3000 (he can't afford to pay, so had better make sure he wins)
Bidder 1 : $4000 (ditto)
Bidder 2 : $5000
Interesting links to entropy (Score:5, Interesting)
The more we deviate from normality, the more information value there exists within our deviation.
In other words, the greater our individual entropy, the more value we attach to it.
This is an interesting result; a first step towards quantification of something I had not really conceived of as quantifiable.
--Dan
Re:Interesting links to entropy (Score:2)
*steps away from unrealistic view of the world*
nah, just social conditioning and fear of embarrassment - I've seen gossip circles - you can't gossip about something that's 'normal'
Re:Interesting links to entropy (Score:2)
Deviation from the norm is high entropy, because there's a high amount of information content describing the shift.
--Dan
Interresting, but sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Some things will never have a "replacement value" (that's what it is), but some believe they can change that. How much more materialistic can you get?
Decadence, here we come!
Re:Interresting, but sad (Score:2)
Re:Interresting, but sad (Score:2)
And, by Jove, they'll get that profit even if they have to step over your dead body. Literally, if needed.
But IMHO partially you're also just seeing a lot of pointless stuff that's just a corporate or personal ego trip. Stuff which happens not even for a quick buck, but because
Re:Interresting, but sad (Score:2)
The more such a doctrine enters the collective mind, the more we'll see cases where human life is being coldly weighed against money without raising any sort of pub
Re:Interresting, but sad (Score:3, Funny)
Try to use love to buy a house in the suburbs, or privacy to get three meals a day. Until you can to this, people will always be trading their lives and health for money (a.k.a. going to work).
In other news... (Score:2, Funny)
(c) Playschool, BBCTV, MCMLXXIV
Once Again... (Score:5, Insightful)
I just read the article (skimmed bits). They managed to determine that people don't like to release embarrasing information or break societal taboos.
No Shit.
Re:Once Again... (Score:3, Interesting)
I just read the article (skimmed bits). They managed to determine that people don't like to release embarrasing information or break societal taboos.
This info might actually be interesting to people who say "What's the problem with the government being able to do this research?" My mother is a classic example of this. The fact is that she feels she has nothing to hide. Why? Because she feels normal. Inconspicuous.
Before, I kept trying to explain that "some people do have something to hide, and it migh
Re:Once Again... (Score:2)
Your entire example, pulled from this research, could just as easily have been pulled out of your ass at any moment.
Thank goodness for deviants (Score:2, Insightful)
May be a little obvious (Score:2)
The consequences of this though, on a study ofwill mean that "perceived" normality will tend to be the one that gets the highest stats. This COULD mean that actual normality is less normal than perceived according to a questionnaire - reinforcing the perceived norms/abnorms.
And in other news (Score:4, Insightful)
a 5 minute observation of real world is apparently worth 10 research papers on obvious conclusions.
Seriously, from a sales perspective, information that people ask for is ALWAYS WORTH MORE than useless information.
Hence, at some point, some person asked for this study, and the researches said, sure I'll take the contract. Why? Because it was WORTH something to somebody.
When people who are disadvanged are asked for something they actually have dear to them, they value it more.
Ask how many programers would take as much money as they can get for a program like:
10 Print "Sucker"
20 Goto 10
Yo Grark
Skewed logic (Score:3, Insightful)
That may be true, but I think it's only a one-way logic. I doubt you can reverse-deduce the weight of people by asking them how much they'd pay to reveal it. The best proof is that these guys [aclu.org] aren't necessarily all obese, and these guys [obesity.org] definitely aren't on the skinny side.
Artifact of urbanized media-intensive society? (Score:3, Interesting)
Culture plays a big role too. I remember reading about the Netherlands and the tendency for the Dutch to leave their curtains open. Closing your curtains (seeking privacy) was actually frowned upon because it was seen as suspicious.
It would be interesting to repeat this privacy study among different people: people in other countries, in small villages, in tribal indigenous cultures, etc. That way we could assess if the desire for privacy is universal or only an artifact of the current mass-media, mass-urban civilization.
the evolution of privacy (Score:2)
The development of the rotation printing press, a machine that made it possible to print large quantities of printed material and thus spread information to a larger group of people, ultimately led to the newspaper industry. This was eventually combined with the use of instantaneous photographs as well as the improvement of transportation, which also contributed to the ability to spread information faster than ever before. These developments led to the article "The Right
on privacy and its "price" (Score:5, Informative)
I have researched privacy quite heavily, mostly privacy and IKT (especially Internet). I even wrote a thesis that touched on this kind of thing, at least in one of the chapters, part of which I will share with you below. Some of the most important aspects of privacy is that it tends to be dependent on context and environment, and based on own activities and needs. People are also willing to give up privacy for some kind of (financial) gain, usually in the form of discounts, prizes, etc. And "convenience" of course.
(From Chapter 2 - "Privacy in the Internet age")
In order to discuss privacy protection on the Internet, I must first determine what privacy means. Privacy is a hotly debated issue on a very broad concept. Privacy can be thought of as among other things:
The above shows that the concept of privacy is non-singular, and that definitions vary widely according to context and environment. Privacy interests have several dimensions including privacy of the person or personality, privacy of personal behavior and personal associations, privacy of personal communications, and privacy of personal data (Clarke, 1999(a)). A common consensus, however, is that privacy is something every human needs at some level and in some degree (Bennett, 2001). Privacy protection is "a process of finding appropriate balances between privacy and multiple competing interests" (Clarke, 1999(a)). This balancing process is political in nature, involving the exercise of power deriving from authority, markets or any other available source (Clarke, 1998(b)).
Cynically, since privacy is such a vague and "stretchy" concept, people often apply it for their own purposes (Schartum, 2001(b)). One of the cynical attitudes is that privacy is only useful for creating "a level playing field," as in the case of privacy conflicts with business interests that see personal data as a resource (Bennett, 1996). The way individuals actually view privacy tends to be dependent on their own personal activities and needs - why do I need (or not need) privacy, and to what degree? Furthermore, while identity is a public and symbolic phenomenon, historical, cultural, and social structure factors also play a role in how far an individual goes in giving out whom he or she is (Agre, 1999). A common argument is "I have nothing to hide," yet Bacard (2000) points out "show me a human being who has no secrets from her family, her neighbors, or her colleagues, and I'll show you someone who is either an extraordinary exhibitionist or an incredible dullard. Show me a business that has no trade secrets or confidential records, and I'll show you a business that is not very successful."
Re:on privacy and its "price" (Score:2)
and here's that link to that study I refer to (Score:3, Funny)
Posting on slashdot has it's privacy price too. (Score:2)
yes, true... (Score:2)
Re:on privacy and its "price" (Score:2)
One of the things I've learned from anthropology is that people not only want to conform to some ideal, they're actually skewing their answers and mental image of themselves to conform to it.
E.g., if during a shortage of some resource, let's say food, you ask in a poll if people eat less, the vast majority will answer "yes". Even if a lot of them actually do the exact opposite. Just because "yes" is the perceived "right answer".
E.g., if you ask in some commu
far from irrelevant! (Score:2)
Anyways, your observation is interesting. Especially in situations where non-conformity leads to some form of sanctions. Do the "right" thing and be rewarded, do the "wrong" thing and get punished. But who and what defines things li
Comparative Study with other societies? (Score:3, Insightful)
In my perception, one of the differences between the US (where I have now been almost 10 times for 2-4 weeks) and German society (where I live) is that the pressure to conform is noticeably higher in the American society. Of course, you can always find niches where pretty much anything is accepted. And yes, intolerance does exist in Germany, too :) But as a small tendency, I would say this difference clearly exists. So my prediction would be that the correlation would be considerable smaller among German participants.
Btw, I am not sure whether I should find this study interesting or distasteful. The idea of someone trying to find out how much I value my privacy in monetary terms makes me feel pretty uneasy, to say the least.
but... (Score:2, Insightful)
What if someone's embarassing private information was that they were broke?
Dangerous study (Score:3, Insightful)
If this goes to a border public then it will be blow for the privacy movement.
Report about privacy from a DRM supporter? (Score:2)
Now, since HP is a commercial company, the report has to be done by economists that reduce every human interaction or belief to a question about money. And for good measure, throw in some free market associations like "auction" and "price":
To address this puzzle, we conducted a reverse second-price auction to identify the monetary value
surveys, lies and statistics (Score:3, Funny)
What have I got to hide? (Score:2)
I don't care if what anyone knows about me, the more they know, the more they understand what the score is.
Look ye mortals an dispare!!
Asymmetrically? (Score:2)
Does 'asymmetric' imply there's a higher cost if you're overweight than underweight, for example? In which case distance from the norm isn't really the right measure...
No, I didn't RTFA, I'm lazy and want someone to explain the summary for me
This is actually interesting to elaborate upon (Score:2)
I assume most people in /. are interested in privacy issues because of what the internet, computer databases, etc. are able to do.
Re:This is actually interesting to elaborate upon (Score:2)
Here's the link: Beyond Concern: Understanding Net Users' Attitudes About Online Privacy [att.com]
No. (Score:3, Interesting)
My privacy protection is a matter of principle and it thus not affected by money. I don't give a whup if someone offers me money for certain, key private information tidbits, I wont give it. Is it because I am "deviant"? No. I am pretty frickin' average, all told, but on PRINCIPLE my privacy is MINE, absolutely, and I will not give it out or sell it off to a government or a corporation or a group of busybodies.
Just wait. This research will no doubt lead to more privacy erosion on the principle that if you do not want to give up the information, then you must be hiding something bad (the result that the perception or fact that one is deviant from the norm making one more reluctant to release private information). This CAN and will be used as a means of eroding privacy. "You MUST be hiding something if you wont give it up freely. Take him away!". Patriot Act v3.0 would be about right to explicitly work from this angle.
Re:No. (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting comment.
It is a violation of United States federal law to use a social security number for identification purposes. And it is still (barely) possible for a U.S. citizen to reach the age of maturity without obtaining a social security number. However, it would be very difficult to obtain a bank account in that case. After a long discussion with a bank manager, I found out I would have to pay the
Re:No. (Score:3, Insightful)
When are you moving to New Hampshire? [freestateproject.org]
Heh. Never. Libertarian is codeword for private property worship at the expense of EVERYTHING else. What it means in practice is wildlife destruction (in the name of private property), habitat destruction (in the name of private property), destruction of historical landmarks, buildings, etc (in the name of private property), and the destruction of neighborhoods (It is MY private property so I can turn my yard into a junkyard if I want to, e
Re:No. (Score:3, Funny)
Yup. Email me offline if you like; I'd be interested in further discourse.
Paid? (Score:2)
*Patent Pending on Business Process.
Misleading Conclusion (Score:4, Interesting)
These results should not be generalized to, for example, online data mining attempts for such practices as direct marketing. In nearly all requests for personal information, confidentiality is maintained, the information is anonymous, and some of the information requested (zip code, subscribed magazines, etc...) is not culturally stigmatic.
I question the applicability and usefulness of this study. Its specific results could have been predicted by existing social psychological research. A study measuring willingness to divulge non-stigmatic and anonymous information would be more useful.
InstantCrisis
God Study but not ready for Prime Time (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a well conducted experiment by academic standards, but I believe its conclusions cannot be extrapolated to real life just yet.
The first problem here is of anchoring with the $25 figure. An example is generally given in literature that first you ask a person when did Genghis Khan live. Say someone says 1275 AD. Next if you ask them how many movie theatres are there in Russia - you will find their answer strongly affected by the number 1275. This is called "anchoring." Anchoring may have reflected why people asked between $4 and $19. They were looking at a 20% to 80 percent increase in that session's earnings and so looks "big" to the $25 anchor.
This is even more problematic. Once you have committed to coming would you just walk out of the whole situation ? Has the time that you spent thinking about this before you came played a role in whether you stay or leave?
The problem here is of "framing." You have made it clear that till $ 100 is the maximum "reasonable" price for private info, other wise you get nothing. This framing of the issue is problematic because it definitely had an influence on what people thought was a fair price for the info. Some people chose "infinity" but that is less than 3 %. If this is extrapolated then there is only 3 % of the popluation that wants to avoid Big Brother and Animal Farm - and that is scary.
.
I can pick up medical data, and point out to the fact that there are many healthy people who enroll themselves in clinical trials for $500-1500. In exchange they are monitored for days and weeks, blood samples drawn upteen times - why ? Because at that time that $1000 is a lot of money in their life. Some friends of mine went thru this procedure and I don't think their decision to give "all medical data" was based on any of the hypotheses of the current study. (As an aside, based on those clinical trial stories I later developed the concept for a comic strip Test Pharm - Cultivating a treatment for everyone [hypermart.net])
The problem is that real life is not uni-dimensional. Cause and Effect is not singular. There can be single cause - multiple effects, multiple causes - single effect, multiple causes - multiple effects.
I can't just say that disclosure of salary is connected to a group average. There are a host of other issues related to the salary information. The salary information has multiple repercussions. In some of these "repercussions" I am average, in others deviant. In some groups I am average in others I am deviant.
This deviance concept is generally used in the Police State defense. "It shouldn't bother you because you got nothing to hide - right ?" I think it is misplaced as it does not consider the various shades of deviances in multiple dimensions - and exaggerates a singular cause rather than a bundle of causes. For example, if tomorrow carrying an almanac becomes a crime by some interpretation of the Patriot Act, then I would be against random roadblocks to "fish" out
Lest a false message be conveyed (Score:2)
Of course it does. But it would be patently false to presume that reluctance to disclose information implies deviance. There are numerous perfectly normal reasons to want to protect one's privacy.
My social security number (Score:2)
realistic valuation (Score:2)
So it's true? (Score:3, Funny)
If that's the case, our Founding Fathers must have been absolute perverted freaks.
One more reason to idolize them!
Well of course. It IS more valuable. (Score:2)
A body of information that makes everybody look alike is useless.
The information that makes people stand out from the crowd really *IS* more valuable.
Re:Anonymousness rewlz ! (Score:2, Insightful)
PS: Do not upmod the parent otherwise you'll prove me false
Re:Anonymousness rewlz ! (Score:2)
Well let's see : you posted anonymously at 6:54AM, then replied to yourself non-anonymously at 7:06AM.
If the article is right then, I deduce you stopped being overweight in a mere 12 minutes. This is by far and away the best weight loss program I've ever heard of. Beat that Weight Watchers!!
Re:I am fit and you are not (Score:2)
Obviously not the definite version of english scholar [stanford.edu] however
Re:I am fit and you are not (Score:2)