Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday July 16 2018, @01:05AM   Printer-friendly
from the honesty:-the-absence-of-the-intent-to-deceive dept.

Glyn Moody writes a blog post at Private Internet Access about how users are steered into accepting terms and conditions which are against their own interests. Even after the advent of the GDPR, and even though users theoretically can change their privacy settings to optimize protection for their personal data, they usually don't. One of the reasons is because it requires effort and thus people mostly accept the defaults through inaction. However, it turns out there are other issues because of the use of user interfaces carefully crafted to trick users into doing things they might not otherwise do, a practice some label "dark patterns".

Brignull runs a site called Dark Patterns, which includes a “hall of shame” with real-life examples of dark patterns, and a list of common types. One of these is “Privacy Zuckering”, where “You are tricked into publicly sharing more information about yourself than you really intended to. Named after Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.” A free report, “Deceived by Design“, funded by the Norwegian Consumer Council, reveals that top sites have recently been engaging in “Privacy Zuckering” to undermine the GDPR and its privacy protections. The report explores how Facebook, Google and Microsoft handled the process of updating their privacy settings to meet the GDPR’s more stringent requirements. Specifically, the researchers explored a “Review your data settings” pop-up from Facebook, “A privacy reminder” pop-up from Google, and a Windows 10 Settings page presented as part of a system update. Both Facebook and Google fare badly in terms of protecting privacy by default.

More details can be found in a report by the Norwegian Consumer Council, entitled Deceived by Design: How tech companies use dark patterns to discourage us from exercising our rights to privacy (warning for PDF).


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 16 2018, @07:13PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 16 2018, @07:13PM (#708024)

    It's a myth that monopolies are the natural endstate of free markets.

    [Evidence needed]

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 17 2018, @12:33AM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 17 2018, @12:33AM (#708149) Journal
    Like the absence of endstate monopolies in relatively free markets?
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 17 2018, @12:27PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 17 2018, @12:27PM (#708288)
      Cough, cough, Microsoft, cough cough Standard Oil, cough, cough...
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 17 2018, @10:08PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 17 2018, @10:08PM (#708541) Journal
        Microsoft never was a monopoly (and keep in mind that they kept their massive market share against free products.

        And Standard Oil was already well on its way to losing it's monopoly (a monopoly formed, I might add, by massively undercutting existing competition) at the time it was broken up.