Google Glass was an interesting case because it showed us people do care about privacy, but only when they feel it's violated.
They will give endless data on themselves and others including photos, video and location but they will outrage the moment they feel privacy is actually at risk - because someone has a camera on their face instead of their hands.
Facebook is actually very clever to obtain all this data without triggering this sensation for the average person.
People know.. but they do not *feel*.
@TheGibson more incidents like the one that dragged Zuckerberg to Congress.
More blatant cues that Facebook is watching, more often.
If anyone wants to be an activist the answer isn't to wave signs and shout slogans - people already know and think about it every time Facebook suggests someone it shouldn't know about.
It has to be a stronger, non ephemeral reminder that Facebook is watching and sharing your information with other people.
@polychrome I guess that’s the genius of the typical front-facing phone/tablet camera. It’s in there *somewhere* but since it’s hidden behind the glass, it’s easy to forget about it, or act as if it isn’t there, in our own hands...
And it is not until something which requires them to do instead of just "say" happens, they are happy to just signal to others that privacy is important. Even then, a subgroup won't act and just continue to signal.
@polychrome @fuuko And worse, companies have realized this. How many personal data leaks from banks and financial institutions have we had recently world wide? Yet, people just sit and continue to preach how privacy is important to them, but do nothing. The social norm requires them to value privacy, so they have to signal it this way, but deep down it's an empty claim.
@sysdharma @fuuko I've gone the reverse route thanks to Glass. People were blocking glass wearers from entering places and even acting violent in the street, in some cases smashing their devices for "filming them".
This is not the response of people who do not care for their privacy. More likely, they want to feel like they are in control of when they expose themselves and get very agitated when they feel the control is out of their hands.
@polychrome what about people who didn't like Glass because it was pretentious silicon valley hipster bs
i played around with a smartwatch and it felt annoying to have to put an extra thing on my wrist and the whole time i was wishing it was on my face instead
i didn't care for the camera on it too much but idk why people don't have the same reaction to smartphones in hands?
Trouble with Glass was the design (and the fact it was a crummy prototype billed at hipsters didnt help). It was too conspicuous and they kept promoting the privacy-invasive feature of "take a photo at any point whenever" which did creep people out.
For this to work the camera needs to be inconspicuous and the device more fashionable. Intel's "looks like normal glasses" spin was the best one so far.
although tbh that's some camera drain i could do without, i'd still make my video calls off a phone... i can see it being useful for translation and AR? but idk how you'd communicate to people that the camera doesn't take pics, and still idk why people aren't conditioned to worry about phones in hands 🤷
And yet google manages to stay in the shadows while Zuckerberg is forever being put in the hot seat and pressed to answer for what FB has done.
Shows the difference between GOOG and F, one is good at dealing with regulatory authorities, other one is good at dealing with people.
@cjd Zuckerberg was in the hot sit because the company failed to keep people from feeling the invasiveness the moment they got political with the Cambridge scandal. Google so far has been managing to keep up appearances.
@polychrome I recall hearing on the news of a study that showed people are willing to give up privacy, which is abstract, in exchange for a concrete benefit.
People may have rebelled against Google Glass because they felt their privacy was violated for the sole benefit of another person.
Google Glass can be a good thing if things are done right, offline routing with Openstreetmap, your own personal biometric database based on your personal photos and being connected to federated social networks and your personal networks.
@polychrome Lots of ordinary people I talk to are creeped out by the way ads follow them around the net. That’s something they feel. Even though it creeps them out, they’re sorta powerless to do anything about it.
@paco the ones I've talked with usually say they're creeped out but "gave up" or "made their peace with it". Which is just as saddening.
@paco The creepiest part is that they follow you on all user accounts that exist on a given computer.
Say, I use same computer with a relative or a friend. Each has their own account. However, if I search for something in particular or visited a dating site or something else, my fellow users on the same machine will see adverts for dating, buying stuff I've searched for etc. when they log in with their accounts.
@polychrome Also people didn't buy them because everyone kind of agreed they made people look like douchebags. Kind of like how people never bought segways because everyone agreed they made people look like dorks.
@polychrome What was funny is, there was no actual privacy threat with Google Glass... it wasn't physically capable of doing what people were afraid of. (I own one but haven't used it in years.)
Spy cameras are available for much less which record longer and are much less obvious they're recording. Oh, and they have drastically better battery life.
The only real privacy peeve it had was actually the way Google treated the user: I couldn't opt out of Google uploading my photos taken with it.
@polychrome The camera was a totally forgettable feature, I had a 3D printed cover to block it, though I never had anyone ask me to use it or express concern.
When recording, it had a battery life of about fifteen minutes and got so hot I thought it might catch my hair on fire. It was not a good product.
@polychrome It might because people could view trading a certain amount of privacy for a service? e.g. in the case of Facebook they *know* Facebook knows everything about them, but in return for that they get News, get to stay in Contact with friends, find new events, and get a free messaging service.
I have absolutely no evidence to back this thought process up though.
@jringram no it makes sense, I just think it ties into the thinking-with-feelings bit because it's a lot easier to give up your privacy until it feels actively violated.
@polychrome Google Glass had two interesting things going with it. First people are acutely aware about attentional gaze of other people. it's almost built into us to want to pay attention to other people's eyes. This is why people feel creeped out when they are stared at and other such things.
The second bit is that the glass was visually unique and novel, and was literally advertised as being able to record any moment.
Who else is watching that feed? Who else is looking?
@polychrome I say this because I'm autistic and seem to have a defect in this area, both in paying attention to other people's eyes, but also not having a good feel for how my own creep them out. Many harsh lessons growing up.
most social animals have some kind of feeling around awareness of attention. We've even found it in Crows. I think that's what's triggering the Privacy reflex here.
A weaponized metaphor: big brother is watching... 👀
@polychrome so it's not so much that people don't care about privacy as it's about people don't have a sense of their data in a context they can understand.
We intuitively feel the violation when it comes to cameras, or microphones, but this abstract notion of privacy invading data collection is harder to grasp.
if we're going to build up people's resistance to such things we have to make it relatable to the way it's currently being experienced.
@ultimape we're still in the very beginning of the information age. It may take a couple of generations until the penny drops about what information is and how exposing it may not be the best idea.
@polychrome more suggesting that our sense of privacy and associated emotions may be based in bilogical phenomena. Google Glass is a good example of how that works.
Cameras have been part of our society since early 1820s, film has been a popular thing since the invention of the air conditioner. We have had 200 years to learn about them and experience it regularly.
Aside from quantified self types, data privacy isn't something we will experience intuitively thru our senses.
@polychrome we see a camera and we know what it is. We have felt remote sensing thru movies and announcements over a radio, or PA systems in train stations. TV and film are something we have to have learned how to feel because it's experience is something we can relate to and imagine. Most of this stuff is used for entertainment of our senses.
We don't have that for data. Maybe the closest experience analogy is someone reading your private journal.
Might take long time without it.
Really interesting convo. I was talking with a friend the other day about how things like this seem to vary by generation as well. Folks born in the early-mid 80s (like myself) grew up with parents warning us "never give your real name/location to anyone online!" in the 90s and stressing an ideal of privacy (in the interest of avoiding violence and scammers) that we feel to this day.
Many (although not all) of are more willing to sacrifice connections for safety. Neither myself or my friend have ever had a Facebook account, and we were reluctant to pick up necessities like PayPal until it became financially necessary.
We feel forced to divulge what information we do, otherwise risk isolation and joblessness. It's a constant frustration that both younger and even many older people don't see the same dangers inherent in the system. Older, because they often don't *realize* their information is being aggregated, and younger, because they don't *care.*
@Lunatic_Moth I've seen an article recently that suggested rather than not caring they take measures that seem paradoxical: since their privacy will be violated by their friends or enemies they take it on themselves to put everything out there so it'll be under their control and soften the blow.
Alternatively they do care but feel like there is no choice, so they just give up.
@polychrome That makes sense, too, actually, and I catch myself doing a little bit of that on what social media I do interact with, "getting ahead" of the wave so you can just ride it when it inevitably crashes down, I guess. "Here's who I am, what I think, how I feel, idk fight me." I still don't do it with physically identifying information, but I definitely understand the idea that just putting yourself out there is more affirming than having yourself exposed by someone else.
Cybrespace is an instance of Mastodon, a social network based on open web protocols and free, open-source software. It is decentralized like e-mail.