Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Teens Actually Care About Online Privacy

timothy posted 1 year,2 days | from the contrary-to-popular-belief dept.

Privacy 93

CowboyRobot writes "According to a new report by Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project, more than half of American teenagers have steered clear of a mobile app due to worries about privacy. Some 56 percent of younger teens (ages 12 to 14) who use mobile apps avoid some apps after learning they had to share personal information to use it, while 49 percent of older teens (14 to 17) have. Also, teens who had at some point sought outside advice about privacy management were considerably more likely than those who had not sought advice to say that they had disabled location tracking features."

cancel ×

93 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Happy Saturday from The Golden Girls! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44665587)

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say, thank you for being a friend.

Re:Happy Saturday from The Golden Girls! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44665625)

It's "You're a pal and a confidant", not "cosmonaut". lol

Re:Happy Saturday from The Golden Girls! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44665789)

idiot

Re:Happy Saturday from The Golden Girls! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44666733)

Being that Bea Arthur looks a lot like Brezhnev, cosmonaut is correct.

I care deeply for privacy if it drains my battery (4, Insightful)

recrudescence (1383489) | 1 year,2 days | (#44665591)

Just saying, slight bias in their conclusion.

Parents (3, Funny)

SINternet (1194899) | 1 year,2 days | (#44665595)

Teen online privacy really only applies to Parents.

You insensitive clod! (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44665695)

Don't forget about us pedophiles.

Re:You insensitive clod! (2)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | 1 year,2 days | (#44666343)

Don't forget about us pedophiles.

Pedophilia is an attraction to prepubescent children, not teenagers. If you are an adult male and feel sexually attracted to teenage women, you are normal. Acting on that attraction may make you a criminal, but it will not make you a pedophile.

Re:You insensitive clod! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44666437)

If you are an adult male and feel sexually attracted to teenage women, you are normal.

Keep telling yourself that, ephebophile. I hope you rot in whatever jail cell you end up in.

Re:You insensitive clod! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44666815)

Maybe they're a hebephile? Not saying that would be any better.

Re:You insensitive clod! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44667297)

Incorrect. We are biologically inclined to be attracted to young, attractive members of our species. If they have nice tits and a nice ass, chances are lots of people will be attracted to them. What's not normal are laws which ban making moves on those who are arbitrarily deemed to be 'too young,' namely teenagers.

Re:You insensitive clod! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44670827)

... laws which ban making moves ...

But they are needed to stop school-girls being emotionally abused by an older male (See: Hope Witsell, Amanda Todd, Anita Silas). Which is why most countries don't worry about a 15 year-old woman fucking a 16 year-old male. Although some countries draw the line at a 15 year-old woman fucking a 17 year-old male.

Yet other abuses of young women (See: , Rehtaeh Parsons) are ignored.

Re:You insensitive clod! (1)

pnutjam (523990) | 1 year,21 hours | (#44675943)

A better example would be Amy Fisher. There are plenty of other examples of young girls being manipulated by older men, but I can't come up with any others off the top of my head. Young girls and boys should both be legally protected from being taken advantage of and manipulated by older people seeking a sexual relationship.

Re:You insensitive clod! (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | 1 year,1 day | (#44668853)

Keep telling yourself that, ephebophile. I hope you rot in whatever jail cell you end up in.

What about these paediatricians, practicing their perversion in plan view. The barmy government has even given them jobs in hospitals, where they seem to ignore adults in favour of children.

Hangin's too good for them, and prison is like a holiday camp.

Re:You insensitive clod! (1)

nobodie (1555367) | about a year ago | (#44690891)

As a hetero male, you have gotten sucked into the whole "young girls are the only attractive females" shit. Let me say from experience of young girls in both my younger years and my 40s, I stay far away from them. Why? Are they ugly? Well, not on the outside, but dumb as a rock on the inside. It takes 'em years to reach maturity and to have anything valuable and important to add to a post -coital conversation. Seriously.

Good to hear! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44665599)

I'm happy with half. Most people are idiots. Nearly half of any group not being a total idiot has to count as a win.
Never really could reconcile this generation's seemingly blase attitude towards anonymity with my own generation's take on the internet. I was a teen when the internet became A Thing, and all us kids were completely fucking enamored with the anonymity. A place where we weren't judged by our age, merely by our worth? FUCKIN' A! Perfect!

Re:Good to hear! (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | 1 year,2 days | (#44666461)

Half is too low. We should aim for 90% being smart enough to value privacy.

Re:Good to hear! (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | 1 year,2 days | (#44667505)

Half is too low. We should aim for 90% being smart enough to value privacy.

90% is too high, even for slashdotters. Need proof? Replace your proposed goal headline:
[90% of ] Teens actually [being smart enough to ] care about online privacy
with
[90% of ] SLASHDOTTERS actually [being smart enough to ] care about online privacy

The latter headline is only true after you append "and avoid having opened social network accounts in the first place." Most people here openly admin that this "secures" their accounts:
used only with immediate family and trusted(tm) single-digit friends
has a fake name
is part of a real-plus-fake-name pair where the real name account is a dummy and has diff data than the fake name account

In the end, cookies follow you equally across the web on all of them, your home IPs are known, and someone will always give away your name in the wrong place (say, tagging photos of you to the wrong account.) The only winning move is not to play, but nobody is smart enough to #win in an empty stadium of their choosing just yet. So we all really want to play, even though we think we're smart and security conscious. If that is us, then what can we expect of the mainstream... let alone their untrained kids?

Re:Good to hear! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44666511)

Most people are idiots

Why is it that every goddamn time I see people making this statement, they immediately follow it up with an(other) idiotic claim?

Re:Good to hear! (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | 1 year,1 day | (#44668675)

Most people are idiots

Why is it that every goddamn time I see people making this statement, they immediately follow it up with an(other) idiotic claim?

Well, statistically, most of them are likely to be idiots, aren't they? :-)

Re:Studies that aremisleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44667645)

The problem becomes (and another reason these study groups are idiots) how many are into something illegal, or something they do not want there parents/teachers, ect to find out?

The percentage number after that is extremely low, so this study is more then misleading. However it does show they are aware of privacy concerns, just by the apps the refuse to download, and those however, maybe apps that could expose more of what they are up too.

Re:Good to hear! (1)

Psicopatico (1005433) | 1 year,2 days | (#44668505)

Most people are idiots.

You know, before the advent of the social networks we've been told this by our older parents and/or friends.
Today, we know the names and surnames.

But... (3, Interesting)

Pollux (102520) | 1 year,2 days | (#44665607)

Did they weigh that variable at all against what percentage of their peers used the app? To what extent do kids care about privacy in the face of peer pressure?

Facebook demands substantial personal information about you, but last I checked, it's still the most popular social networking app kids use.

Re:But... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44665811)

I don't know if you have kids, but the teens I know are moving away from FB and to things like Twitter, Snapchat, Facetime, and G+ Meetups.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44667563)

I don't know if you have kids, but the teens I know are moving away from FB and to things like Twitter, Snapchat, Facetime, and G+ Meetups.

The following kills my single doubt about your list:
"Snapchat is a photo messaging application developed by Stanford University students"
all of them are provided by American companies, and moving away from one part of a bugged country to another is not going to delete the tracking data on them.

If anything, it only strengthens the analysis software with further data to mine.
By the time trustworthy offshore alternatives show up, if that ever happens, the NSA datamines will be too smart not to know what we're trying when we "move away" to those.

Re:But... (1)

Seumas (6865) | 1 year,2 days | (#44665827)

I dunno. I keep hearing that kids don't use the phone anymore. But I also constantly see stories that they don't use twitter anymore (it's for old people). And stories that they don't use facebook anymore (that's for old people). Apparently, teens don't use the internet at all or something, because "that's for old people".

Frankly, if other people's kids want to be a natural resource for governments and industries to exploit, then go for it.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44666041)

facebook has far surpassed a simple idea like "being used". No sir, it's moved into another context all together. Now it's creates reality itself. For instance, I used facebook for 2 months or so. During that time I had people "friend me" that had I seen them in a public place, we'd not have talked for more than 20 seconds, if that. Next thing I know, I've got over 200 "friends". Now before you go on to simplify the matter by informing me that "Those people know that they're not actually your friend, and so do others...", let me inform you that the fine folks at facebook don't give a shit about what friend level you're at with these people. They're building a huge database of how everyone is "connected", who knows who. And they're using it to manifest any version of normal reality that would come with actual groups that hang out together.

And this proves that the meaning of this article is moot anyway, because people who use facebook for personal reasons (not business), don't give a shit about security of privacy. They may think that they do, but they obviously don't.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44671541)

Why the hell did you accept friend invites from people you really don't know that you'd talked to for "20 seconds, if that"??

Oh, wait, that's right... from above: "Most people are idiots." Never mind.

Re:But... (1)

KarlIsNotMyName (1529477) | 1 year,2 days | (#44666643)

If only the NSA database were opt-in.

Logical enough... (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | 1 year,2 days | (#44665617)

I'm mostly unimpressed by the twee nonsense about kids these days being 'digital natives' or something, imbued with mysterious computer-using powers (sure, kids these days are almost all users, unlike older age brackets that have holdouts; but the bar is not high for 'using technology', thanks to years of dedicated UI polishing and idiot-proofing, so only the usual much smaller percentage of nerds have any reason to go beyond trivial levels of knowledge); but it seems perfectly reasonable that they'd be a relatively privacy-conscious group.

After all, kids are among the demographics most likely to be surveilled and to be punished or otherwise restricted based on that surveillance. Parents, teachers/admins, peers, present or near-future employers and college admissions officers, cops (whether they just come and break up that party you foolishly put on facebook or whether you are already familiar with being stop-and-frisked depends on other demographic variables, of course), all actively watching and frequently acting on that.

Adults are still pretty heavily watched; but the range of banal behavior they can engage in without consequence is substantially greater.

Re:Logical enough... (2)

aitikin (909209) | 1 year,2 days | (#44665669)

Yeah, I mean, if you told me when I was a kid that my parents could find out where I am and figure out what I was doing or I could turn off this one little feature (the second link used location data as frame of reference) and they'd have no further capabilities...which do you think would happen? (yes I know, it's not that easy, but it's still the naiveté of youth that would lead me to have thought that at 12).

Re:Logical enough... (2)

Kjella (173770) | 1 year,1 day | (#44668571)

The whole issue didn't exist when I was 12, the way to turn off location tracking was "hey mom, we're going out to play", no cell phone, no beacon. Sometimes we did have a specific place in mind, sometimes we didn't, sometimes it changed on the way so really the only reliable information was that if we said we'd be back at seven we made sure to be back at seven. And nobody had phone cameras, okay we had a family camera that took film that needed developing but it wasn't going to be around. If you did stupid shit, nobody had anything to record it with. I'd say privacy was largely something you didn't have to defend back then, it just came naturally. If I was growing up today, I'd be way more concerned about my privacy than I was then. I'd go as far as to say we were mostly oblivious to it. Fuck I'm in my 30s and this thread makes me feel oooold.

Re:Logical enough... (1)

sir-gold (949031) | 1 year,1 day | (#44671781)

On atleast 4 occasions when I was a kid, I was so late getting home that my mom called the police to report me missing. And in every instance, by the time the (same) police officer arrived, I had already come home and was standing next to her.

Eventually they just started telling her to wait 30 minutes and call back if I was still missing.

Re:Logical enough... (4, Interesting)

Seumas (6865) | 1 year,2 days | (#44665797)

Exactly this. The media puts out this idea that because kids use more technology than kids of any other generation, it somehow equates to them being more technologically capable. I'm sorry, but kids using an iPad to play a game or their PC for twitter and WoW are not the same thing as kids knowing how a computer works, how to setup a router, debugging networking issues, writing code, and so on.

Further, I do not believe that most kids give a fuck about privacy, because their actions don't follow that claim. Further, these are the same age groups that were polled a few years ago and said they felt that the press had too much free speech and the government should do something about it.

That said, it has become trendy (thanks to reddit) for young people to suddenly give a fuck about things like their privacy. So . . . I guess there's that.

Re:Logical enough... (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | 1 year,2 days | (#44666197)

I'm sorry, but kids using an iPad to play a game or their PC for twitter and WoW are not the same thing as kids knowing how a computer works, how to setup a router, debugging networking issues, writing code, and so on.

Be careful. You may be overestimating the importance of knowing how to "setup a router, debugging network issues, writing code, and so on", when it comes to being technically savvy. If you want to write code, then writing code is important, but I know plenty of people who can write efficient Cobol but don't know the basic language of Twitter, or even how to use all the apps on their smartphone.

There was a time when being able to write C++ code made you "technically savvy". Now it makes you probably a relatively low-wage worker. There are those of us who spend more time setting up the latest version of Linux and compiling kernels than they do actually doing something with that technology. For these kids, that's all drudge work, and just care about "what I can I do with this?"

For example, think of all the discussions here with hundreds and hundreds of comments about why someone uses a certain OS and not another. For these kids, it really doesn't matter. You sit them down with an iPhone or Android, Mac or PC and they'll be communicating with their friends while we're still setting the menus the way we like them and playing with settings in the OS to get things just so. There is a difference, and I think the edge goes to the kids who have had this technology from the crib.

Re:Logical enough... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44666463)

Technically savvy doesn't mean knowing what to use a computer for. It means knowing how the technology you use works. Seumas was exactly right. You totally missed the point.

Now try to backpedal or explain away what you suddenly realized to save face.

Re:Logical enough... (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | 1 year,2 days | (#44666563)

You're claiming that being technically savvy is equivalent to chasing the latest fashion. I'm sorry but that's not savvy, it's trendy.

It's not because Cobol is an old, horrible language that people who know it aren't technically savvy. On the contrary, how few people would want to learn Cobol these days? On the flip side, knowing Twitter talk or knowing how to use the thing mean very little when it's going to get replaced by something else in the next few years (just like it's replaced something else). Oh, and knowing C++ (or C or Fortran or whatever other featured language of your choice) is pretty much fundamental to being technically savvy. You're equating "knowing C++" with "only knowing C++", the former of which is important and the latter foolish. There never was a time where just knowing a language made you technically savvy.

Re:Logical enough... (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | 1 year,2 days | (#44667083)

You're claiming that being technically savvy is equivalent to chasing the latest fashion.

Not many are as guilty of "chasing the latest fashion" as software developers.

Re:Logical enough... (1)

some old guy (674482) | 1 year,1 day | (#44668595)

Nonsense. It is foolish to conflate proficiency with a tool, albeit a common one, with native scientific understanding of said tool.

Does your average expert sniper necessarily know the metallurgical properties of gun barrels or the physics of optics? Probably not, and doesn't care. Ballistics is about as deep as it gets, and generally only on the practical level.

Familiarity and proficiency with features and optimum usage are indicators of interest and affinity, not technical understanding. While not exclusive, they are not exactly co-dependent either.

I only use this example because many years ago I helped train snipers and got to know quite a few.

Re:Logical enough... (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | 1 year,1 day | (#44668815)

Does your average expert sniper necessarily know the metallurgical properties of gun barrels or the physics of optics?

My point exactly.

If what you want is people who are able to succeed in this world, on the terms of this world, then native proficiency beats native scientific understanding nine times out of ten.

Think I'm wrong? Let's drop a newly-minted PhD in Botany on New Guinea and lets see if he lasts as long as an 22 year-old native. Or a climatologist PhD in the Gobi and compare his adaptation to that of a Bedouin of the same age.

Re:Logical enough... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44670083)

So the "digital natives" know which buttons to click in a UI designed by others. Wow, how savvy they are.

You're just redefining savvy to mean something less impressive so that the kids today can reach the bar. Like redefining "a whiz with cars" to mean someone who knows which pedals do what instead of someone who actually knows how cars work. The bar is lowered so that users who aren't afraid of the technology represent the savvy.

Re:Logical enough... (1)

BitZtream (692029) | 1 year,1 day | (#44671099)

Does your average expert sniper necessarily know the metallurgical properties of gun barrels or the physics of optics?

Now days? Almost certainly, yes. Modern day military snipers are some of the smartest people on the planet, contrary to what you clearly think. They most certainly understand the optics and to some extent metallurgy. They know how their scopes work, and what exactly each type of bullet is going to do on impact. You can ignore this and pretend that just because they can't describe it using chemical and physics formulas that they don't understand it, but I'd argue they understand real world physics better than 90% of the 'physicists' out there.

No, they don't know how the metal reacts in the lab. They don't work in a lab. And few metallurgists would be able to tell you the information about bullet impacts and how the bullet fragments in each situation like a sniper talking his trade.

When did you train snipers, 1903?

Re:Logical enough... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44666493)

Kids on reddit spend their days patting themselves on the back for being unique snowflakes and thinking differently while furiously downvoting anyone who thinks differently.

They do not take privacy seriously because they occasionally get up in arms about SOPA. The noise level increases because it is the way to get karma, not because they actually care.

Re:Logical enough... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44666771)

I think you just described Slashdot!

Re:Logical enough... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44666877)

Ok, fair point but, in my opinion Slashdot has something very interesting that Reddit doesnt: genuine anonymous discussion.

When discussion is not anonymous, you tend to get chilling effects and people being very much "perfect" a la Facebook. When it's pseudonymous, you get Reddit with little cliques of karma-whores determining the rules of the hive-mind. When it's totally anonymous, you get 4chan and potentially Slashdot.

Personally, I prefer anonymous discussion because those of us who are genuinely interested in testing out and toying with ideas don't get "punished" for thinking outside the box. Posts stand on their own merit.

Re:Logical enough... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 hours | (#44675923)

That said, it has become trendy (thanks to reddit) for young people to suddenly give a fuck about things like their privacy. So . . . I guess there's that..

That trend is internet wide. thanks for Snowden. Now, from now on, internet users will be more interested in their privacy.

Re:Logical enough... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44665995)

Digital natives pah! Kids can't use computers. They still double click on hyperlinks. I have to change screen resolution for some one at lest once a week and put the fracking wires back into the corresponding keyboard/mouse/monitor/USB holes regularly.

Kids know how to use software or platforms and then largely only what they are interested in.

I had a young CS student come to me because I maintain our virtual learning environment and have some web skills. She wanted me to go over dreamweaver with her to catch up on the lessons she'd missed with her tutor. I don't know dreamweaver, I know HTML and CSS and couldn't help her as I haven't touched dreamweaver in nearly a decade.

Kids have been rinsed and repeated on windows, IE, office, gmail, Facebook, Android, iOS and can do all that. Digital natives... Er... No.

D bag headline (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44665645)

What kind of a fucktard starts off a story with "teens actually care about online privacy"! Like it was no big deal until they found some people that had half a brain and do not like where the online world is headed. Who cares what fucking age they are?

Re:D bag headline (3, Insightful)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | 1 year,2 days | (#44665739)

Welcome to the wonderful world of ageism, where anyone more than ten years younger than you is automatically an ignorant, lazy degenerate with no future! Please line up under the sign with the year of your birth so you can receive a bag of nostalgic items from your childhood, to further cement your prejudices about people you've never gotten to know and don't understand, and to ensure fully that the rosy tint of memory prevents you from remembering how you actually were as a person at that age, and thus from empathising with any children or teenagers.

Re:D bag headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44665803)

Funny, the ageism I know of says that anyone more than five years older than you is automatically an old fogey who doesn't understand technology at all. Anyone more than ten years younger than I am is typically considered some sort of programming god, even if all they know how to do is string together ready-made PHP scripts.

Re:D bag headline (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | 1 year,2 days | (#44665847)

Yes. Ageism works in both ways. As a general rule, discrimination works in all directions, and always includes the keyword "lazy."

Re:D bag headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44666607)

False equivalency. If you've ever worked in IT as a career for any amount of time and think that the ageism towards the young is anything even remotely like the ageism towards the older, you've not paid attention.

Young people are generally perceived in the media as the former AC implied: Programming gods and child prodigies. Older programmers are dusty has-beens "who probably still code in Cobol" or some other archaic language that always comes up in these types of discussions.

Re:D bag headline (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | 1 year,2 days | (#44666789)

I find that depends entirely on the shop—I know some older C++ warlocks who are utterly annoyed by that culture and assume hotshot kids can't possibly know anything because they lack experience. Granted, those are mostly in smaller companies, but the knee-jerking goes both ways.

Re:D bag headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44666165)

One cross each!

Re:D bag headline (1)

Belial6 (794905) | 1 year,2 days | (#44667197)

The piece that most people miss is that we train our children for 13+ years that ageism is the natural order of things. You can't read. You are not 5 years old yet. You can't do geometry proofs. You are only 9. You are 12? Then you definitely know your multiplication tables, and we will put you in classes that assume that you do.

Re:D bag headline (2)

Seumas (6865) | 1 year,2 days | (#44665805)

Because they largely don't care about privacy. Or, rather, what we consider to be important aspects of privacy. You know, like privacy and control of your data and information. Here is a quote from an article earlier in the year, discussing how teens see privacy totally different:

"The data suggest that teens care less about data privacy and more about more socially oriented forms of privacy, those designed to protect the integrity of a community."

They may care about not having mom track them via family-GPS on their cell phone, but I have seen no shift in their behavior over the last decade to suggest they give a flying fuck about their privacy, overall. Their actions and use of websites and services over the last decade also doesn't suggest anything other than this.

Re:D bag headline (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | 1 year,2 days | (#44665899)

If you are going to judge people's attitude toward privacy by what they use is there any demographic other than 'subsistence farmers at the ass-end of the developing world' who would actually be judged to care about privacy?

Re:D bag headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44666805)

There is a slight difference between using Facebook to update the world at large about your every bowel movement and being a subsistence farmer in the "ass-end of the developing world". There is also a middle-ground that you would be able to see if you were not a contrarian who was merely looking to score a cheap sophistic point.

so? (4, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | 1 year,2 days | (#44665655)

It only takes participation in one of these invasive networks to lose your privacy. 'apps', facebook, whatever.. it's all the same. The only winning move is not to play.

Just steered clear (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44665673)

of the reddit "enhancement" suite upgrade because it suddenly wanted access to history and tabs.

Been using it for a while until then, but now I dropped it. So it happens.

Re:Just steered clear (2)

kmg90 (957346) | 1 year,2 days | (#44666573)

*facepalm* with that logic you should stop using Chrome, guess what, Google knows every place you go on the web even things you type in text boxes ("for spell check reasons" only ;) Stop using Reddit too since they track the links you click on....

Google Chrome, putting the fear into their user base every chance while providing a false sense of security by having the most vulnerabilities the past 3 years than any other browser. Source: http://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-products.php?year=2012 [cvedetails.com] http://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-products.php?year=2013 [cvedetails.com] http://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-products.php?year=2011 [cvedetails.com]

Re:Just steered clear (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44666925)

*facepalm* with that logic you should stop using Chrome

You are absolutely right. That's why I never started.

Re:Just steered clear (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44667731)

*facepalm* with that logic you should stop using Chrome, guess what, Google knows every place you go on the web even things you type in text boxes ("for spell check reasons" only ;) Stop using Reddit too since they track the links you click on....

Click Radiator Button.
Click Settings.
Click "Show Advanced Settings" hyperlink at the bottom.
Scroll down.
Untick "Use a web service to help resolve navigation errors"
Untick "Use a prediction service to help complete searches and URLs typed in the address bar"
Untick "Predict network actions to improve page load performance"
Untick "Enable phishing and malware protection"
Untick "Use a web service to help resolve spelling errors"
Untick "Automatically send usage statistics and crash reports to Google"
Close Tab.

There. Fixed it.

Re:Just steered clear (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | 1 year,2 days | (#44668193)

Have you verified that with those settings, Chrome doesn't communicate back to Google, or do you just assume it?

Re:Just steered clear (1)

Krenair (2501522) | 1 year,2 days | (#44666975)

Doesn't really matter... (3, Insightful)

blahplusplus (757119) | 1 year,2 days | (#44665683)

... most kids are tech illiterate. To have any real privacy you have to understand the technology and what it's implications are and most average people will never grasp how easy it is for people to get your information if you use any technology at all.

Re:Doesn't really matter... (1)

Seumas (6865) | 1 year,2 days | (#44665807)

But little billy started playing Plants versus Zombies on the iPad when he was two years old! He's a TECHNOLOGICAL GENIUS!

Re:Doesn't really matter... (1)

dyingtolive (1393037) | 1 year,2 days | (#44667433)

Ugh.

And yet (2)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | 1 year,2 days | (#44665687)

most of their life they post on facebook

Re:And yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44666125)

Not any more...

I'm 13 and None of My Friends Use Facebook - Mashable
mashable.com/2013/08/11/teens-facebook/ - Cached
Aug 11, 2013 ... Facebook is losing teens lately, and I think I know why. ... my mom heard I was getting bullied on Facebook, she would tell me to quit right away.

Teens: Facebook's becoming more 'meh' | Technically Incorrect ...
news.cnet.com/.../teens-facebooks-becoming-more-meh/ - Cached
Apr 10, 2013 ... Earlier this year, a couple of slightly anecdotal studies suggested that Facebook was showing its laughter lines and that teens were moving ...

Report: Teens leave Facebook for Twitter, because they want less ...
www.geekwire.com/.../pew-report-teens-facebook-twitter-instagram/ - Cached
May 22, 2013 ... Facebook is still the social media king, but teens are using Twitter and Instagram at an increasing rate recently because, well, there's just too ...

Teens have âoeWaning Enthusiasmâ for Facebook - Geek News Central
www.geeknewscentral.com/.../teens-have-waining-enthusiasm-for-facebook/ - Cached
May 29, 2013 ... The Pew Research Center released the results of a study called âoeTeens, Social Media, and Privacyâ on May 21, 2013. One of the findings was ...

Youngest Millennials Reducing Time On Facebook, Turning to Tumblr
www.policymic.com/.../youngest-millennials-reducing-time-on-facebook-turning-to-tumblr - Cached
A 6% difference in teens' use of Tumblr over Facebook may not seem significant ... and 30% of teens would un-friend their parents if they could get away with it.

Are Young People Moving Away From Facebook? - Vocus
www.vocus.com/.../are-young-people-moving-away-from-facebook/ - Cached
Jun 13, 2013... Snapchat and Vine, young people are moving away from Facebook, ... Vocus on Twitter Vocus on Facebook Vocus on YouTube Vocus on ...

How Teens Are Really Using Facebook: It's a 'Social Burden,' Pew ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../teens-facebook-pew-study_n_3313812.html - Cached
May 21, 2013 ... Facebook, teens say, has been overrun by parents, fuels .... .blogs.nytimes.com/ 2010/09/15/dont-tell-facebook-friends-that-youre-going-away/" ...

Teens moving away from Facebook 'drama'; what does 'ready for ...
www.syracuse.com/news/.../teens_moving_away_from_faceboo.html - Cached
May 22, 2013 ... New York City council calls for an end to giving standardized 'field tests' to students.
News for facebook teen moving away from

Why Facebook Is In Decline
Forbes - 5 days ago
Teens hate it when people try too hard; it pushes them away. ... notes that people âoeâ¦are moving away from social networks like Facebook that ...

Teens Starting to See Facebook as Old and Creepy - TechNewsWorld
www.technewsworld.com/story/78111.html - Cached
May 22, 2013 ... "Just because teens may be moving away from Facebook, that doesn't mean everyone is moving away from Facebook," she said. "And it ...

https://www.google.com/search?q=facebook+teen+moving+away+from [google.com]

Re:And yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44670297)

The survey was done via telephone interviews not via actual objective stats (e.g from the apps and app sites themselves).

Asking people questions doesn't always give you the truth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA [youtube.com]

Ask a girl or guy how many sexual partners they have had and you could get very different answers depending on how you ask and the context you put the question in.

Observable data does not back study (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44665693)

Then how do you explain the popularity of Facebook among the ungrateful little snot-nosed brats?

The Next Generation (3, Interesting)

wrackspurt (3028771) | 1 year,2 days | (#44665699)

In human terms a generation is around plus twenty years. The internet about twenty years ago didn't have Google or Facebook. On /. the big concern was how completely insecure windows 95 was. There was a bit of chatter about privacy but it wasn't front and centre. The next generation has grown up on the internet and with social networking. It may be privacy will become the next way to show how cool you are. Who knows, crazy kids.... we can only hope.

Re:The Next Generation (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44665747)

On /. the big concern was how completely insecure windows 95 was.

The bigger concern was how we could be posting on a website that won't exist for another 4 years.

Re:The Next Generation (1)

Seumas (6865) | 1 year,2 days | (#44665815)

Two years. Windows 95 came out in the summer of 95 and Slashdot started in the summer of 97.

Re:The Next Generation (1)

wrackspurt (3028771) | 1 year,2 days | (#44666273)

Ya I know but I wasn't trying for pinpoint accuracy. In full disclosure I didn't start lurking around /. until 98 but even then windows 95 was a giant security hole. Maybe if we look at the improvements in security relative to windows 95 and see it as having in large part come about because of sites like /. there's hope the same furor happening today about privacy is a harbinger of like improvements in privacy.

cheers

Re:The Next Generation (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44666377)

but even then windows 95 was a giant security hole

winnuke!

Ah, the days when men were men, women were men, children were men, FBI agents, or actual children whose parents didn't understand this Internet thing; and the laws of the Internets were enforced by way of people not understanding how IP addresses worked and what you could do over IRC with those four little numbers.

Re:The Next Generation (1)

BenoitRen (998927) | 1 year,2 days | (#44668445)

Windows 95, completely insecure? As a business workstation, sure, but as a home OS?

Sure teens care... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44665707)

... and then the "oooh shiney" Apple steps in and their brains explode.

Yeah, sure... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44665745)

They care about it because Google's app store shows them what permissions the app requires, then they jump to shortsighted conclusions. I once had someone email me some insulting words because my application kept track of the phone state in an attempt to reconnect gracefully after a call on CDMA carries. I guarantee the ~50% of teenagers who have not used an app because of privacy concerns have a Facebook account.

They don't trust the app because.... (1)

seanvaandering (604658) | 1 year,2 days | (#44665791)

.. they clearly have something to hide. Since all their secrets are hidden in the phone you kind of want to trust the phone to hold your secrets.

is what they say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44665949)

but we all know more than 3/4 of them never bother changing the privacy settings or pretty much share all their lives on facebook or twitter to begin with.

Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44665977)

When you tell me the percentage if teens NOT using Facebook, then your research has credibility that kids are actually worried about privacy.
I'd say that GPS tracking concern is about physical threat AND lack of vehicle.

and the lesson for app makers is (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44665989)

consumers should never be told how much information is being taken

... avoid some apps after learning they had to share personal information to use it ...

Care about privacy? Not these kids. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44666019)

After all, both Apple & Google hand over all of your info to the NSA.

Social Networking and Privacy with kids (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44666035)

Every kid these days has a social media portfolio (doesn't matter if its Facebook,twitter,instagram it adult friend finder). Slashdot community and kids have very different views of privacy, slashdot is more concerned with protecting data from corporations and governments (lurks,pgp,etc.) while kids are more concerned with protecting data from individuals (snapchat,password protected phones,etc.). Keep that in mind when taking in this article. I'm barely an adult myself and a year ago when I was in high school nobody but a small handful (5 or so in a school of 1000) actually understood the implications of data being stored by other parties and actively fought against them. While its not a popular view its refreshing to know that I expanded the understanding of controlling your own personal data to the staff and other students.

Horseshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44666757)

Teens don't even look at privacy and security. They just want fun and free. Get real.

Privacy schmivacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44666767)

Some 56 percent of younger teens (ages 12 to 14) who use mobile apps avoid some apps after learning they had to share personal information to use it

More like "I have to type all that information in to make an account? Fuck that... it sounds like too much effort!"

mobile vs cloud (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | 1 year,2 days | (#44666829)

Right, they are aware of privacy concerns when it comes to mobile. But what about cloud services like Gmail? Are theses kids paying attention to who is handling their communications and documents, and what is done here?

Tom Tom (0)

onceuponatime (821046) | 1 year,2 days | (#44668031)

Just recently, when I went to use the tom tom app on an iPhone to navigate to a contact. It displayed a popup that asked for permission to share your contacts. I refused permission and it removed the previously working navigate to contacts option. Clearly this is just spite as it's not necessary to share your contacts to navigate to it. I don't use navigate to contacts now but if I knew about this behavior before I had bought it I would never buy this app. That's just plain evil and spiteful and nasty.

DON''T buy tom tom navigator!!!!

The difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44670501)

Adults concerned about privacy are generally concerned about snooping by their government and by corporations. Teens concerned about privacy are more likely concerned about Mom and Dad, or their peers. I suppose I should just be glad they're concerned about it at all.

This is a subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44692753)

Study finds teenagers are in fact human, care about technology and it's effects as much as "normal" humans.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>