[dogma1138]

People aren't bothered about security or privacy, they just cannot be bothered.

Giving even the slightest incentive to send data brings those numbers up extensively even if what you get is meaningless.

Basically humans need a reason to tick a box.

This is why this is under GFE which gives you value added services.

[throwaway2048]

>People aren't bothered about security or privacy, they just cannot be bothered.

Says who? You? Facebook? Microsoft? Google? You don't see the inherent conflict of benefiting from that position and declaring it, unilaterally, it to be so?

How many people do you think would be comfortable, and explicitly approve the kinds of "opt out" data collection that goes on, if you gave them the true extent of how that data can be/is used along with the impacts of it?

Frankly, fuck the attitude that you, or any other developer knows more than me, and decides that i "Just cannot be bothered", especially when its to their (often considerable) benefit.

[LordDragonfang]

> Says who? You? Facebook? Microsoft? Google?

I think you just answered your own question. "Says" the plurality or even majority of the human population who use services from the companies you just listed, despite constantly being under scrutiny for privacy concerns.

[Karunamon]

When using "people" in aggregate, this is a completely correct statement . It's why, for example, HN throws a fit[1] the moment a developer goes so far as to add anonymous google analytics to a package manager [2] even when that data couldn't possibly be used to harm them or track them in any way.

If you make $thing opt in, most people will not do $thing, regardless of what $thing is. Defaults matter.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11566720

[2]: https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/blob/master/docs/Analytics....

[blub]

Google analytics. Anonymous. Couldn't possibly be used to track them.

You've either missed the last decade of privacy-related discussions or you're playing for team spyware yourself.

Companies like Google have billions, lawyers lobbyists, sociologists and every bloody specialist working for them to suck all information out of everybody and there's always some clueless person jumping to their defense with some pointlessly pedantic arguments. Because we don't want to be unfair towards Google or nvidia.

[dogma1138]

It's not about missing the privacy discussion it's about the public at large not giving a flying duck about it, regardless of what you think.

Pick a random person on the street and ask them, you need to understand that by enlarge simply by knowing about this site you are already part of a tiny subculture of of the general population, and most likely living in a walled garden as far as your social connections goes.

People don't opt in, but they don't care about their privacy just look at the amount of people that would sign up for a mailing list/club benefits at a store they'll only visit maybe once in their life for a 5-10$ worth of discount that they'll never lose - for that they'll be willing to give up a whole lot more of personal information that GA or NVIDIA GFE collects.

This doesn't excuses the practices, it's just the reality we live in.

[blub]

People can't be expected to understand all the subtle aspects of privacy, medicine, drugs, automobiles and many other things.

That's why there are laws which by default protect those people from the maliciousness, greed or incompetence of companies. And why the US needs strong privacy laws.

The fact that the masses don't understand something is irrelevant.

[Karunamon]

And what of the people that do "understand all the subtle aspects of privacy", and disagree with your conclusions?

[nitrogen]

People don't appreciate the consequences of far away activities in general, until you make it explicit like the NSA segment on Last Week Tonight.

[dogma1138]

Even then they don't give a flying duckling, have you seen that segment? Before the interview they've asked people on the street and they didn't knew who the fuck Snowden was, people who watch LWT are already a tiny privileged portion of society.

FYI Same goes for Real Time, The Daily Show, and the Colbert Report.... You are literally preaching to the choir....

[Karunamon]

Or, I don't agree with this absurd definition of privacy that the tech sector has gotten itself enamored with, but okay, we'll go with the accusations of being a shill.

[blub]

It doesn't matter if you are a shill or are doing it because you believe you're right. At the end of the day you and other people that agree with such abuses for some subtle reason are all part of the problem. Hence playing for the opposite team.

You don't seem to understand that being reasonable, impartial and giving companies the benefit of doubt doesn't work when you are a mere flea opposing gigantic conglomerates.

Privacy is very simple. The person's data should be controlled by that person: they should know what data is stored on them, should be able to correct it if wrong or ask for it to be deleted. Any kind of data transmission should be opt-in.

Anything else is bullshit and goes against the interests of the customer. If not at the beginning, when they inevitably decide to monetize that data.