The outrage about Prism spying is wearing off already

[MADem]

The whole article is worth a look. A snippet:

Privacy may be passe


....There's some hard evidence that all this privacy stuff just doesn't alarm us all that much. Take a look at some surveys. According to the Pew Research Center, "A majority of Americans—56 percent—say the National Security Agency's (NSA) program tracking the telephone records of millions of Americans is an acceptable way for the government to investigate terrorism, though a substantial minority—41 percent—say it is unacceptable." So most of us are cool with wiretapping.

But we're not as happy about someone peeking at our Internet usage. Pew found that "45 percent say the government should be able to 'monitor everyone's email and other online activities if officials say this might prevent future terrorist attacks.' About as many (52 percent) say the government should not able to do this."

Another survey, the Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor Poll, conducted before the NSA revelations, found that 85 percent of U.S. residents said they were worried about unauthorized access by the government and corporations to personal information like phone records, emails and Web activity.

But that number isn't as impressive as you might think. The same survey found that more than two-thirds of us have no problem with exposing personal data in trading for the benefits from social networking and IM/video chat services. We also really don't object to advertisers knowing more about us if that means our Web pages will give us more relevant, targeted ads.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2043777/the-outrage-about-prism-spying-is-wearing-off-already.html?tk=out

Quite the mixed bag...

[HooptieWagon]

1. Only in the BOG bubble.

As people learn about the extent of Obama's surveillence policies, they get pissed. This isn't going away.

[Skittles]

7. actually, it is idiots in general

"....more than two-thirds of us have no problem with exposing personal data in trading for the benefits from social networking and IM/video chat services. We also really don't object to advertisers knowing more about us if that means our Web pages will give us more relevant, targeted ads."

I mean, those are some seriously naive people.

[MADem]

48. Well, the Pew survey wasn't one of "BOG" members.

And I suspect you didn't read the article...

[Cha]

65. BOG person here! No, we didn't make

that poll happen.

[MADem]

67. I'm astounded at how many people read the headline, maybe skimmed the snippet,

and came to a conclusion about the article that wasn't even the intent of the piece--even to the point of trashing the author and denigrating the source.

It's astounding how partisan people can be!

The upshot of the piece, which really has a rather limited scope, is that computer professionals in workcenters need to be vigilant about privacy issues, because employees/users often aren't.

[Cha]

70. "BOG" lol

[sheshe2]

80. BOG person here~

They are so silly, Cha.

When shit happens~ blame it on Obama. In lieu of that~ blame it on the BOG.

[MADem]

83. I think we should blame it on the BOOGIE!!!

Everybody, get up and dance, now!!!!

[Cha]

94. Blame it on the Boogie.. Excellent idea, MADem! nm

[Cha]

93. Petty

Jealousy.

she

[Sheepshank]

91. That's a pretty judgemental, pissy and shallow judgement you are throwing out there

...very progressive of you....not

[HiPointDem]

2. you wish.

how do i know this article is a pack of lies?

"We also really don't object to advertisers knowing more about us if that means our Web pages will give us more relevant, targeted ads."

yeah, sure. we don't care that advertisers eat our firstborn children as long as we get more fucking targeted ads.

[MADem]

18. Why are you being such a confrontational and disruptive person? "You wish?" Please.

What part of "mixed bag" is unclear to you?

And sorry, you absolutely don't "know that the article is a pack of lies"--you WANT it to be, and you think that by being snarky and rude to me, that will make it so. The article is based on surveys--are you saying people lied on the surveys just to jerk chains? Or are you suggesting that Pew, et.al. "made shit up" to .... be troublemakers?

Maybe, just maybe, this next generation coming up DOES have a different POV on this topic--it happens with generations--they don't always feel the same way the old fogies do about things, from hair length to hemlines to what they want to share with others. The world is not a static place.

[Tx4obama]

3. A problem with the first paragraph in the excerpt...

Tracking telephone 'records' (obtaining meta-data that is collected and owned by 3rd party telecoms) is NOT 'wiretapping'

[CakeGrrl]

4. Yep. That's how misinformation spreads.

"Wiretapping" means actively listening to conversations (as in "The Conversation&quot .

Nope.

[MADem]

8. I agree--I'm just the stenographer, here! nt

[snooper2]

14. It's amazing how ignorant folks are on this subject

That threatens their "Freedom!" and "Rights!"

You would think they would try to have a basic understanding of technology and terminology. I know, (It's HARD) LOL...




I don't go around posting stupid theories or ideas on why that 777 crashed. You know why? I'm not a fucking pilot or airplane mechanic

[JoePhilly]

76. That error is part of the misinformation campaign ... as is the use of the word "spying".

Some people started to figure out that the collection of meta data was not wiretapping ... and so, those spreading the misinformation changed terms ... not to become more specific, but to become less specific.

The switch to using the term "spying" is an intentional effort to get people not to understand the facts, but to get them to IMAGINE something far worse that would be included under the broader term "spying".

And suddenly, we re all Will Smith in "Enemy of the State."

[im1013]

5. Propaganda piece.

[MADem]

9. You don't get away with that. What's propaganda, what's not true, and be specific.

Do you work for Pew? Are you saying their polling is biased?

Give over, now, dispense with the pukey icons, and back up your assertions.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

33. no. puke icons are way easier with no risk of person being proved wrong

[MADem]

36. I agree. Puke and run is pretty meaningless. It's like shorthand for "shit on the thread." nt

[im1013]

60. IT WAS 4.20AM WHEN I POSTED THAT!

Geez!! I'm so sorry that you didn't respond for like 6 hours. But because some of us are on the internet in the middle of the night, instead of the middle of the day, that's a great reason to jump all over my ass.

My response to your questions are (or would have been) that pcworld is nothing but paid sponsor advertising. And as for the polls cited in the op, I have seen MANY other polls out from just as supposedly reputable pollsters saying pretty much the opposite.

My whole point being, that this is exactly how the powers-that-be "convince" the general public of any damned thing they want. "Oh gee, maybe I'm just overreacting, since "most people" don't seem to have a problem with it." And people buy it hook, line and sinker... sickening.
Anyway... that is what I meant.

[MADem]

61. Why should the time of day matter?

Keyboard shuts down after midnight? You demand far too much "mind reading." You could have stated your "whole point" in the first place.

Funny how the author of the piece said the exact opposite of your last paragraph. He expressed personal concern over privacy erosion. His caution was to industry insiders, and he said they need to give a shit about company privacy, even if the rank-and-file workers don't.

[JoePhilly]

77. First paragrpah is wrong, uses the term "wiretapping" incorrectly.

[MADem]

86. Someone else on this thread noted that as well.

That doesn't make it propaganda, though--that's more like a sloppy misuse of a term.

[sheshe2]

79. They puke on Pew, without any facts~

Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts.

http://www.pewresearch.org/about/

Our flagship project provides independent public opinion survey research about American attitudes toward politics and policy. Formerly, the Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press (1990-1995), the Center has been sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts since 1996. Major reports examine long-term trends in political values, U.S. views on policy issues and priorities and political knowledge and news interest.

http://www.people-press.org/

PEJ tracks the transformation of journalism in a changing information landscape through its annual State of the News Media report and other special reports. Major reports examine news coverage, economic models for news and audience trends.

http://www.journalism.org/

However, give them a moment. When a poll fits their beliefs, they will be extolling it's virtues.

K&R! Great OP, MADem~

[MADem]

82. The fact of the matter is this, we have met the enemy, and he is us!

They don't like that "everyone" isn't as outraged as "some" are. Compared to the Germans, we're pikers in the privacy sweepstakes. And people aren't, even with these revelations, getting as annoyed as even the pollsters thought they'd be.

It's a cultural shift. That said, there actually are elements of the ALLSTATE/NJ/HM poll that would please the Hair On Fire crowd, if they'd only bother to dig into the results first, instead of trashing the thing because they didn't like the headline of an article.

I will admit, I wondered if people would do the "knee jerk" thing when I posted this article--I shouldn't have wondered, it was certainly a reflexive reaction by some.

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. I don't think this issue is going to go away

This is perhaps the strongest opposition to a a policy issue among Democrats since the early days of the Vietnam War. A fervent minority who has a point of principle that is beyond the level of sucking it up has developed. Even if it is a minority opinion - it is a fervently held minority opinion. When a significant minority of the people know to a moral certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt that they are right - that is something that is just not going to go away

[MADem]

12. I don't either--and it shouldn't go away. It should be discussed to death.

It will likely wind up at the Supremes.

What will happen there, who knows, but I think there will be a lot of people--maybe on both sides of the issue--who will be mad when it all shakes out.

[morningfog]

10. Oh good! I hope they keep expanding and pushing! We need more spying!

[MADem]

15. That's what you got from the article...?

[uponit7771]

11. Not amonst Ron Paul supporters

[marions ghost]

13. Articles from PC World and Computerworld

mmmmkay....

The last line is interesting:

If you work in technology, though, and you have to start working out how to handle your company's security or how to manage privacy on your staff's BYOD tablets and smartphones, just keep one thing in mind: You'd better care about corporate security and privacy, because your people almost certainly don't.

[MADem]

16. Mmmmmkaaaaaaaay.....? Now PC World is a "suspicious" source?

Complete with the silly little eye roll icon? Come on!

Jesus--click trash thread if you don't like it, but trying to trash computer publications because you think they don't marry with your worldview is just a bridge too far for me.

That post says more about your unwillingness to read what people are saying and what their views are than it does about anything else.

This article is--if you read without bias--demonstrative of a mixed bag of attitudes re: the whole issue of privacy. I think it's a useful piece. You can always hit the X if you don't care for it.

[marions ghost]

20. Back off the caffeine puhleese

PC World and Computerworld are not the best resources on this issue, even as they work hard to patch together some surveys from here & there to make their points. They are far from objective. I'm sure you know why.

I generally go to the link and read the articles that people post, and I read this one in full. It's pretty transparent industry spin --where's that fluff smilie, oh yeah

I posted the last paragraph for any further perspectives, but of course you didn't respond to it Contrary to your fervid beliefs, I am always interested in other people's views. Yours are interesting, for example. It's important to know how people with different perspectives think. Obviously you agree with the idea that "Privacy May Be Passe"--that privacy is just an old-fashioned idea whose time has come. I find that fascinating and wonder sincerely how you got to that place. Sincerely, if you care to explain.

PS--I like smilies they say a lot in a small space, useful. However because you don't like them I guess I should never use them Probably I will continue out of habit, but just hit the X

Thanks for reply

[MADem]

23. AGAIN with the snark and rudeness! "Back off the caffeine puhleese" -- are you completely

incapable of conversing with being petty, shirty and using emoticons?

They are like prunes you know...are three enough? Are six too many?

If you don't care for the article, you can say so without tossing insults at me. That's how adults exchange ideas.

I suppose "Pew" and that Nationwide Poll ( I guess they have a crystal ball, that data was collected before Snowden did a bunk) are in the pockets of "the computer magazine cabal" or something?

And since you read the article, surely you MUST know that "Privacy May Be Passe" isn't my "fervid" belief--it's the title of a subparagraph in the piece that addresses the concept--one which has been a topic of discussion not just in this magazine, but all over the news and in opinion pieces.

Here, to please you, I'll join in -- this emoticon sums up my attitude towards this waste of time exchange:

[marions ghost]

25. Please read your post 16

for an example of snark and rudeness.

Here are some "adult" points for you to consider:

Take a look at this excerpt again:

"Another survey, the Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor Poll, conducted before the NSA revelations, found that 85 percent of U.S. residents said they were worried about unauthorized access by the government and corporations to personal information like phone records, emails and Web activity.

But that number isn't as impressive as you might think. The same survey found that more than two-thirds of us have no problem with exposing personal data in trading for the benefits from social networking and IM/video chat services. We also really don't object to advertisers knowing more about us if that means our Web pages will give us more relevant, targeted ads."

------------
So, as you point out, the PC World article is based on data collected BEFORE the Snowden info-sharing. This is the best evidence yet that the article posted July 7 is badly biased.

What was true BEFORE the revelations certainly may NOT be true now. But in PC World it's perfectly fine to use as support for their current opinion that "privacy is passe."
-------------

OK now take a look at WHO did this poll (which they mention only AFTER they have name dropped the "Pew" poll before that). Go here (Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor Poll) and take a look and tell me this is not an industry PR campaign:

http://www.allstate.com/heartland-monitor.aspx

---------------
(Since you don't say that you don't agree, I assume that you agree with the article).

Never enough emoticons for me. I don't take the use of them as an insult, or less "adult."

[HiPointDem]

30. +1

[MADem]

31. Good grief--the fact that the survey was taken beforehand isn't a secret--the author has told you

this.

Can't see why you're crowing in a "gotcha" fashion about that. You wouldn't have known unless he told you, and he told you, so he wasn't trying to hide it.

The author gives you two data points that talk about attitudes towards privacy, and then he cautions people working in the industry to be aware that the end users might not be so vigilant about these issues as those with a proprietary interest--like computer professionals.

And I guess the National Journal partner in that poll should be ignored, to say nothing of the Heartland Monitor... because you say so. Funny, was this poll they did an "industry insider" one, too? I think not.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/heartland-monitor-poll-obama-leads-50-percent-to-43-percent-20120921

You are just scrambling for an argument. I don't wish to oblige you.
You have a nice day--or not. I really don't care.

[marions ghost]

45. OK to address your points

1. The author mentions in passing that it's a pre-Snowden survey but then he USES it to support his line, "Privacy may be Passe." It is still disingenuous to do that in any sort of real journalism, and since it's now post-Snowden, it perpetuates a false assumption that what was true then is true now. He avoids posting any NEW poll statistics, clearly showing his bias.

2. Yes, the polls from the National Journal/ Heartland Monitor were commissioned by ALLSTATE.
(You left that out). Part of a PR campaign from Allstate. No, not an objective poll. An industry insider, definitely.

-------
But you know what, I really appreciate this conversation because it shows just how devious some of these industry-related blogs are, and I thank you for posting it. THEY (tech/computer industries) are the ones "scrambling for an argument." And this is a weak argument.

[MADem]

49. To respond:

Point One--YOU are the one making "Snowden" the "marker point" for this discussion. The writer of the article isn't. Pre-Snowden, post-Snowden...Snowden is just one point on the continuum. He's not the Be All, End All or "watershed moment." He's a reason to discuss this issue, but that's like talking about unusual baby names because Kardashian and West named their kid a strange name. The article isn't just ABOUT him--it's about an evolving discussion on privacy.

Point Two--The poll was not "commissioned by ALLSTATE." All three of those entities FUNDED the poll. That's how those things work. Not "part of a PR campaign from Allstate."

[marions ghost]

56. Of course Snowden is the marker point

1. I think it's safe to say that the numbers for such a poll on privacy might look a bit different after the recent NSA revelations. But the writer wants you to think there is no difference (or he would have searched for a new poll). He wants to return to the "nothing to see here" line of thinking. If you don't see that Snowden's revelations have suddenly changed the conversation in a BIG way, well I guess I can just assume that you agree with the writer.

2. http://www.allstate.com/heartland-monitor.aspx

Did you go to this link? It is CLEARLY a PR campaign. Allstate has been doing these for awhile. To tell us everything is OK. Maybe you get your political/social views from Allstate, but I sure don't.

------------------------------

I rest my case. Your article hangs itself by its own petard.

[MADem]

57. Well,you are hoisted on yours--you can't "hang" from a petard.It's not what you think it is.

But never mind that.

Snowden is not "the" marker--he might be to the young and uninformed, but over the arc of our history, he is just a single footstep on the long road to Damascus. He is "a" marker on a long continuum of privacy eroding actions that have occurred over the course of decades. The use of the SSAN for everything, from your driver's license number to the identifier you give some bozo when calling about your cable, gas or electric bill, is just one example. A demand for your zip code every time you make a purchase is another. Loyalty cards at coffee shops, sandwich shops, supermarkets, pet stores, drugstores, etc.; Caller ID, logging of IP addresses, the capability to find reams of information about people with two clicks and google, facebook, twitter, other social media outlets--all of these erode privacy. None of this shit was SOP a half century ago.

I fail to see how your link proves what you said it proves. The only "PR" that ALLSTATE gets out of their name on the poll is the name recognition blip. They hire experts who do all the work, and all they do is pay a third of the bill. Do you seriously think that a Washington Post poll would call their poll a "Generic Name" poll? Part of the purpose of funding these things is to make an association in the minds of the people reading about the poll with those three entities--ALLSTATE, National Journal, and Heartland Monitor. They aren't a polling company, like Pew, they are HIRING a polling company. It's not a "PR campaign" in the sense that they are directing or controlling the results. They are just sponsoring polling on subjects of interest to the American people--just like Washington Post, New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, CNN, NBC and any other agency that wants their name "out front" does. But you wouldn't call their polls a "PR campaign" and dismiss them. In my view, you are dismissing them because you don't like the results.

So you can rest your case if you'd like, but you haven't made it.

[marions ghost]

59. Faux logic

1. There is a BIG............................... difference between a supermarket card (voluntary) versus having all your email stored against your will. (Duh?) --There is some very twisted logic being used to justify this kind of widespread clandestine surveillance. People who are invested in the system as it is will go along with it, of course.

2. Allstate uses this solicited polling to influence people, ie. for business purposes. Sorry, these consumer oriented polls are not the same as those followed by reputable news sources.
-------------

I take any poll with a lot of skepticism. Most Americans will not react to the negative implications of this revelation immediately--but they are taking note of the current NSA debate as never before.

[MADem]

64. No, not at all.

Your ISP stores "your" email. It's not just yours--they have a copy as well. Until we have machines that link one to the other, without a middleman called COMCAST or Verizon or Earthlink or what-have-you, someone else has a copy of your emails.

Allstate is an INSURANCE company. They are selling insurance. National Journal is selling magazine subscriptions. They put their names on polls, like Washington Post or CNN does, to raise their product's profile--nothing more. They aren't trying to "influence" people, they are commissioning polls on things people are already interested in, in the hopes that people will read the poll, and if they decide they need insurance, they'll buy some from Allstate. That's all they are doing. To act like an insurance company is trying to influence people on the diverse topics of polls they've had a hand in, is just absurd.

[marions ghost]

75. OK have it your way

... as I know you will. here are your roses And here are my final comments. You can answer them as much as you like. I'm done.
--------------

1. Personal data is collected--duh. We need protections to LIMIT what collectors can DO with your personal data. We do not have those limits, obviously. That's the problem.

2. If you think Allstate is working to provide the consumer with unbiased polls, then you really do pledge allegiance to the corporatocracy. If you read the page with the list of poll topics you will see that they do polls on things THEY wish to push. Their selection of topics and how the poll is carried out has everything to do with the results. Like I said, polls are not but so meaningful these days. Best not to put too much stock in them. Especially polls generated by and for the commercial sector.

Your posts in this thread illustrate exactly how much we DO need real consumer protections in this country. So many people have no idea what that really means. So thanks for your views.

[MADem]

81. And here's mine--corporations are collecting that data, not the government. That's the piece

everyone is missing. It's not NSA collecting that METADATA, it's VERIZON. All the NSA does is have an easier time accessing it as a consequence of FISA courts.

People with their hair on fire about overreach need to understand that the restrictions need to be placed on corporate collection--because that is where the "gubmint" gets their data. Good luck with that, though--the Supremes have ruled that "your" phone records are not yours--they are the phone companies. So there's that hurdle. And it is a BIG one. But the biggest hurdle is that too many Americans just do not give a shit. You might not like that, but that's the truth. And for most of these people, Ed Snowden is not the messiah.

You need to--and I doubt you can-- show me how ALLSTATE "benefits" from "biasing" a poll about privacy or who is winning the presidential race--I don't think you can. You also need to show me how ALLSTATE "conspired" with National Journal and Heartland Monitor to get them to go along with skewing poll results...for precisely what purpose, pray tell? The only reason they co-sponsor these polls is to create a memory in the mind of the poll consumer, that they hope will lead to increased sales as a consequence of name recognition, and for no other reason.

What you're shopping is a conspiracy theory, one that makes no damn sense. You're shopping it because you don't like the information contained in the article.

Here's a briefing on the poll results (that were all about "ALLSTATE" according to you) put on by National Journal:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/events/all-eyes-on-privacy-transparency-in-the-new-economy

As technology becomes progressively nimble and pervasive, how do Americans feel about its impact on their personal privacy? Drawing on top findings from the Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor Poll, this insightful briefing explored a variety of privacy issues, including how government and business can use technology and "big data" to collaborate with the public to support growth and prosperity, to the tension between the increased collection and use of personal data. Thought leaders discussed poll highlights on the benefits, and concerns over privacy as they relate to personal, economic and political use of private information.

There's video. That doesn't look like an ALLSTATE "biased" poll to me.

A little more "light reading" for you: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-25/privacy-paradox-americans-happy-to-share-personal-data-with-big-business

It’s official: Americans may freak out when government collects their data to track terrorists, but they would happily have banks use it to catch some jerk trying to hack into their accounts.

A global consumer study commissioned by Infosys (INFY) found Americans less concerned about sharing personal data with companies than are consumers in countries such as Germany. About 88 percent of Americans said they’re comfortable sharing online data with retailers, while only 57 percent of Germans said the same. In banking, personal data sharing was O.K. with 83 percent in the U.S and 56 percent in Germany; the health-care realm saw approval fall to 77 percent and 50 percent, respectively.

The study covers 5,000 consumers in the U.S.. Germany, and three additional countries (not Russia, Ecuador, and China, the apparent destinations of choice for National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden, but the more conventional pollster stomping grounds of the U.K., France, and Australia). The key finding: People will allow access to personal data if they get clear benefits in return. That means seat upgrades, fluffy pillows, and fraud protection, not a general feeling that their country might be more secure.

The challenge is how they’re willing to share it. Giving data to your doctor is fine during a face-to-face interaction, but very few consumers want doctors, retailers, or banks to have access to their social profiles. (Who knows how those party pics may come back to haunt you when it’s time to get that home loan or a physical for work?) And while consumers want more personalized offers and marketing from retailers, they’d rather the information be mined from past behavior than have to hand it over themselves.

http://newamericamedia.org/2013/07/privacy-is-no-more-and-we-are-all-guilty.php

But even as Americans worry that their personal communication records are being monitored without their consent, many say that the spying works as a deterrent for terrorism attacks, according to a recent USA Today/Pew Research poll. Americans surveyed were more or less split (48 to 47 percent) on whether they approve or disapprove of such programs as part of the nation’s anti-terrorism effort. Yet, more than half (53 percent) of those surveyed also said government spying programs help prevent terrorist attacks. And a slight majority (54 percent) felt that Snowden should be criminally prosecuted. ...


Part of the problem is that privacy isn’t what it once was. Diaries once kept locked in one’s drawer have become blogs for all to see. The domestic doings of private citizens are often captured in the raw on Youtube and Vimeo, as if their lives are reality TV shows. If Americans are wary that we are being constantly monitored, we, too, are guilty of divulging our secrets -- we make spying on us an easy task. Between our urge to tweet opinions, our impulse to photograph meals on Instagram, our need to share every sorrow and update our every move on Facebook, we have more or less become an open book. In essence, we volunteer information about ourselves as habit. And the way technology is going, with social media increasingly becoming an integral part of our daily communication, #privacy is not to be had, #imsorrytosay.

Spying, too, is no longer the business of government agencies. Increasingly, tracking is done not by various companies and organizations but by individuals. Shopping malls monitor your shopping patterns by tracking your cell phone. Advertisers target individuals based on their interests, a seemingly personal touch accomplished by sophisticated, impersonal software. Self-tracking, too, is increasing. There are wireless devices that can track people's physical activities, while other devices can measure brainwave activity at night to chart people's sleep patterns online. And as drones are becoming smaller and smaller, it is only a matter of time before feuding neighbors or distrusting spouses can spy on one another using this technology, a kind of Mr. and Mrs. Smith writ large.

Privacy issues aside, in the post 9/11 era Americans live with a new set of norms. Mass deportation of undocumented immigrants who toil on our land has become the new norm, and despite talks of reform, those without proper papers continue to get swept up in wide sweeping government dragnets. The new norm allows careful surveillance of Muslim communities and many don't mention certain words like “jihad” or “bomb” on the phone, out of fear it might trigger investigation. Since they are being heavily monitored, some Arab Americans have invented roundabout ways to refer to their own children or relatives who have common names like Osama or Saddam. ...

[Apophis]

17. The majority of Americans are idiots.

[MADem]

19. Well, naive, certainly. They've never had to care...so they don't. nt

[Cleita]

21. I don't put much credibility in articles about democracy and public policy that appear

in niche targeted publications about other things. I don't think PC World or the author, who specializes in technology and business, have the expertise to comment on this other than the tech side of it. Sure in the business world maybe PRISM isn't such a big deal, but to everyone else it is.

I think I will file this under astroturf, like I used to file all articles on the evils of the Canadian health system published in magazines about other things than health by authors who might have specialized in sports or entertainment writing them.

[MADem]

22. The data isn't self - generated. It's from Pew, et.al. nt

[Cleita]

24. Doesn't matter. So he gleaned a few stats from Pew. He's not an expert in the matter so

he's not credible. I don't see political wonks like Chris Matthews writing articles in the Huffington Post about how to learn hacking.

[MADem]

26. An expert in what matter, pray tell? He's an expert in computer systems, and the "privacy" issue

enjoys a perfect nexus with that. It's what the article is addressing. Sheesh!

Did you even read the article? Try on the Big Finish for size--this is his conclusion:

Talk is cheap; action costs more
Of course, I have to keep in mind that what we say in a survey and what we do in real life are often two different things. Sadly, I believe that in this case we actually care even less about Internet privacy than these numbers reveal.

Yes, I know, some people care passionately. I'm one of them. But I'm cynical enough to know that the idea of privacy that I grew up with has little to do with privacy in today's world of big data, traffic analysis, and ubiquitous social networking.

For many, the real questions of the day depend on the opposite of privacy: "Did you know that Full House star Jodie Sweetin has filed for divorce?" "Can you believe that Kim Kardashian and Kanye West named their baby 'North West?"

If you work in technology, though, and you have to start working out how to handle your company's security or how to manage privacy on your staff's BYOD tablets and smartphones, just keep one thing in mind: You'd better care about corporate security and privacy, because your people almost certainly don't.

[Cleita]

29. Look I know you are going to glean for facts to bolster your position but

credible sources are important. I agreed he's an expert in computer systems, but not an expert in spying policy. So sure he can say people don't care and maybe his business community doesn't, but too many of us do.

[MADem]

32. I am left with the impression that you didn't even read the piece. nt

[Cleita]

37. I read the part you posted and then the author's bio. That was enough for me. n/t

[MADem]

40. And you missed the entire point. nt

[Cleita]

42. Whatever. I don't have time to read everything posted here especially from sources

that are unreliable for the subject matter. DU has always been papered with astro-turf so I have to be selective with the time I spend on trying to get factual information.

[MADem]

51. Why bother, then? nt

[think]

27. Thank goodness. Maybe no one will look into all the whistle blower allegations

good grief.....

[MADem]

39. Good grief, indeed. That's NOT what the article is discussing.

If you had bothered to read the article, you'd see that it has nothing to do with "whistle blower allegations" at all. It's all about privacy expectations and their impact in the technological workplace.

[Katashi_itto]

28. Another propaganda piece. BOG would like to think it's going away.

More magical thinking.

[MADem]

34. What?

Explain how that comment relates even remotely to the article, please.

[Cha]

69. Poor things are brainwashed.. post an article like yours and out comes

"BOG"

[MADem]

71. The assumptions that have been made in this thread are very interesting.

They trash the source, they trash the author (who is concerned about privacy, but they have to actually read the article to find that piece) and then they trash me for posting it!

It's an interesting dynamic to observe...!

[Cha]

73. Stomping bully tactics and they don't have a

clue it's not work-ing.

Intelligence rules.. bullies drool.

[Sheepshank]

92. look at those posting # for the lasty 90 days

it's interesting and clarifying...for me anyway

[liberal_at_heart]

35. yeah, okay.

[MADem]

47. Not sure what you find so googly-eyed about the piece.

Maybe you could read it and share...?

Or not.

[ZombieHorde]

38. I am more disturbed by the war in Afghanistan and the torture

of Bradley Manning than the metadata.

[moondust]

41. It would probably stick a little longer if

there were some actual victims showing up on the teevee machine.

A little.

[MADem]

44. The focus of this article is more about generic attitudes--but I understand your point.

I don't contribute to social media sites like facebook because I don't like my "business" all out there. However, all the young people in my family--and some of the older ones, too--and their many friends, can't help but vomit all their details onto the web, some on an hourly basis.

I find that kind of "sharing" to be unseemly. They don't. I know I'm in the minority in this regard--people love the twitting, the facebooking, the constant, over-the-net interaction. I would feel uncomfortable having every minute detail of my life out there on the world wide web. The rise of the "selfie" is something I NEVER would have predicted, but ... there it is. People don't only not MIND putting themselves out there, they aren't even shy about posing for photos they take themselves!

It's a different world. Some people think that the reduction in privacy is a bad aspect of technology, and others think it's just an aspect--not bad, not good, just a neutral. It comes with the territory...

[moondust]

52. Same here.

I've never done social media either even though some family members do.

I've never fully trusted politicians, particularly Republicans, to do the right thing when the wrong thing is available and may offer them some personal reward. History is full of sorry examples of people assuming power and abusing it.

Nor have I ever wanted to invite personalized advertising or whatever from corporations that may have developed a personal profile on me.

If you build it, they will...abuse it.

[MADem]

54. I have supermarket and drugstore "loyalty" cards....

...in the names of dead relatives and pets!

T'aint nobody's business if I do!

I have to laugh when a long-dead cat gets a credit card application--and it happens!

[Waiting For Everyman]

43. That sounds like whistling past the graveyard.

This issue isn't going anywhere, and pols who are smart will get on the right side of it.

Those in the public who aren't riled up about this (yet) are not aware of what is involved (yet). It takes time for a general awareness to build. The Watergate scandal took a year to be understood by the public at large. So check in a year from now and see if your premise is true. I think it will be a big issue in the 2014 elections. We'll see.

[MADem]

46. That's not what the article is saying.

Nowhere does the article say that "this issue" IS going away.

It's not what the article is about. The article is about how people are approaching the privacy issue, and how they feel about data sharing, and how that affects computer professionals responsible for networks. It's not about the intelligence piece, specifically.

You should read it from start to finish before you presume to know how the author feels about the subject. And what "premise" did I advance, save to say the article was a mixed bag?

[Waiting For Everyman]

50. The title is a statement, no?

Yes, I read the article. And here's now the author feels about the subject...

Of course, I have to keep in mind that what we say in a survey and what we do in real life are often two different things. Sadly, I believe that in this case we actually care even less about Internet privacy than these numbers reveal.

You can dissociate yourself from it if you want to, but loosely speaking, the fact that you posted it makes it "yours" in terms of referring to it. This imo is hairsplitting, which is usually a move to dodge the point.

[MADem]

53. The title is a statement, but it's not how "the author" feels.

You are confusing a conclusion the author drew from his review of the polls he cited with the author's personal "feelings"--which he did share further down:

Yes, I know, some people care passionately. I'm one of them. But I'm cynical enough to know that the idea of privacy that I grew up with has little to do with privacy in today's world of big data, traffic analysis, and ubiquitous social networking.

I think the guy raises some interesting points, and sadly, I think some of the people responding to the article missed them completely because they're so focused on which Snowden Team (For or Against) they happen to be on.

[Waiting For Everyman]

55. Well,

I think the author's points were much smaller than the current issue, and misleading in that small focus. I couldn't care less what his feeling are, frankly. But they too seem to be a "mixed bag". As to teams, I couldn't care less about that either, but I do damn well care about privacy (internet and otherwise) and I think a whole lot of other people do too.

[MADem]

58. Perhaps they are smaller points--but I wouldn't say they are misleading.

I don't disagree that his views are a mixed bag--he doesn't like it, personally, but he sees the handwriting on the wall, is my take-away.

I think he's right. If people were so over-archingly concerned about privacy, they'd abandon facebook in droves. But they aren't going to do that, because the 'joy' they get from it is worth the trade-off to them. Same with twitter and these other social media, which are corporate-run, yes, but so's our national security, if you want to put a fine point on it (no one gets a government pension out of Booz Allen Hamilton).

Of course, corporations create problems, and they'll also sell you solutions, or give you ones for free that just move the records about your stuff somewhere else: http://www.usatoday.com/story/cybertruth/2013/07/08/prism-snowdenfree-privacy-tools-curtail-online-tracking/2488097/

There is a solution--eschew social media, move to the country, away from video cameras every ten feet, limit communications--but many people don't want to do this, so they put up with the intrusions.

[sibelian]

62. OK.

PLONK.

[MADem]

63. Another one who didn't read the actual article.

PLONK (so childish) right back at you.

Thanks for the thread kick.

[Bonobo]

66. Only among the easily distracted.

And it too is part of what the powers that be hope for.

[MADem]

68. The easily distracted are the bulk of the nation.

But the focus of the article isn't on "Powers That Be" (whosoever THEY might be), it's on computer professionals in workcenters, and their clients/fellow employees.

[Incitatus]

72. Yes

Historically there has been a minority that saw things coming long before they got bad enough for a significant amount of the population to take action. Of course, it's usually too late by then for an easy fix.

[SidDithers]

74. DURec...

And btw, you're now being called an "authoritarian water carrier".
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=10023206515&alert=2#post2

Nice, huh? Welcome to the new DU.

Sid

[MADem]

84. Insults are a poor substitute for substance. Anytime someone insults me, I take it to mean

"I can't rebut your argument on the merits, and I hate you for it."

It has the opposite effect that they intended. They want to make me feel lousy with their insult, but instead, it lets me know precisely how lousy THEY feel because they've got nuttin' but name calling!

[leveymg]

78. The only ones less bothered now never bothered to be bothered to begin with. eom

[MADem]

85. That could be. But people, as one link I provided upthread suggests, are willing to trade privacy

for perks--travel upgrades, free donuts, consumer "goodies,"---and they'll also trade privacy to catch people stealing money from bank accounts, but when it comes to national security, it's a mixed bag.

There are some very interesting studies coming out about how people feel about the loss of control over their own information. This subject is much more nuanced than some want to acknowledge. It's not only not a black-and-white (in terms of love it/hate it) issue, but it's most definitely NOT a partisan politics issue. There are differences of opinion on both sides of the aisle--no one party "owns" the "right" POV on this topic.

[leveymg]

87. I agree this is a bipartisan issue.

Even I have a nuanced view of NSA operations. I would like to see them become MORE involved in fraud prevention and retasked to clean out all the scams, viruses, and malicious codes flowing over the net these days. That would be protecting the national security.

If some agency develops a lead that indicates that someone intends to blow up a bridge, a Judge will give them a warrant. But, the universal profiling and data trolling genies have to be pushed back into their bottles.

[MADem]

88. The problem is--and I'm not endorsing the process, just commenting on it--is that if

"certain words" appear in emails that is how they know there's a problem.

Of course, all that does, when that type of data-mining information is made public, is that people start using different words for things. Instead of bridge, they'll say birdie. Instead of 'blow up' they'll say feed.

As someone who had to learn an entire code along these lines in order to have a casual conversation with friends while residing in a "constitutional monarchy" (cough) that had, as an essential element, an over-reliance on the "security state," I know how easy it is to change up the script. Of course, we didn't have internet or computers back then, most of us without a lucky landlord or money for bribes didn't have telephones, and the television, radio or the record player were always useful to have on at good volume in the background, just in case.

I don't know what the answer is--it's a difficult question, that's for sure. I think outsourcing key elements of our national security...like background checks... is the first big mistake. The government doesn't like paying pensions, that's why they like outsourcing. Perhaps they should recruit older military retirees who just want to earn a bit of pin money--hell, they need to something, because it's obvious that there's no professionalism or integrity in that process whatsoever, and it's been a problem for at least a decade.

[leveymg]

89. The more modern systems work by recognizing patterns of deception - word omission,

substitution (as you illustrated), and by detecting other attempts to use code or mislead the reader. I'm convinced that the first people they check out are the ones who don't have an computer Internet addresses or a cell phone in their names. It's also sending up a red flag to encrypt messages, so those people pushing PGP here giving bad advise and are doing nothing but drawing attention to themselves.

Outsourcing nat'l defense is worse than false economy - it was Rummy's pet project!

[MADem]

90. +1,000, and to infinity re: Rummy and his pet project. We need to dial that back! nt