Re: Expanding the icon crowdsourcing

[Ben Moskowitz]

Hey guys,

Thanks for your patience. This was in no way a canonical decision, since we haven't yet "finalized" the icons. But a number of the contributors thought the threads between "third-party use" "sharing with ad-networks" and "sold or bartered" was too fine to needle. So for the iteration on the wiki, I dropped "sold or bartered."

What do you guys think?

We're having a meeting about using Icons in our web app store, so our work here will accelerate and we'll get clearer about some of the details in the very near future.

Will also see Casey in SF tomorrow—looking forward to it.

Ben Moskowitz
Media Program Lead
Mozilla Foundation

--
b...@mozillafoundation.org
714-420-6471
@benrito

On Jul 27, 2011, at 11:12 PM, Brian Kennish wrote:

>> Ben M. - Can you provide some input or do we need to ask Asa?
>
> Would be great to know the status of the "bartered or sold" icon, Ben.
> I think Casey said you guys were going to try to catch up next week if
> you want to give him the lowdown then. For now, we'll plan to keep the
> icon since discarding that data is easier than asking users to
> reevaluate policies.

[Michiel (unhosted)]

Hi!

About the three icons
1) other purposes
2) bartered/sold
3) for ads
In my opinion, the "your data will be used for other purposes" is a
base category of which "for third-party money" and "for advertising"
are subcategories. Right?

If my data (whether primary data like what I upload and write, or
secondary data like my IP address and activity patterns) is used for
other purposes, then i would assume the default to be for targeted
advertising. So I would say the 'for ads' icon is superfluous. What
does it add? Can 'for ads' occur without 'other purposes'? I don't
think so.

'other purposes' can occur without 'for ads'. for instance, it can be
used for adjusting my insurance fees if i browse forums about
expensive-to-cure diseases. if i agreed that my data can be bartered/
sold, and i'm running for president, then for all i know, in countries
where ad-hominems are allowed in elections campaigns, my opponent
might buy my data to use stuff from my personal life against me in his
campaign. So, if my data is used for other purposes, but they are not
targeted ads, is that better or worse?

also, the involvement of money (bartered/sold) is in my opinion
relevant. It adds to the level of unethicalness. Just like someone
might say "I'm going to live a respectable life, I will not have one-
night stands". Or, "I'm going to live a moderately respectable life, I
will have one-night stands, but I will not use the paid services of
prostitutes". To me, it feels acceptable (once you're used to it) that
google displays adds alongside search results. Even if it's a
subsidiary or a third party that runs the adds, like is the case if
the site i visit is not google, but displays google ads based on which
page i'm on. Yet if a website were to /sell/ my usage patterns to
google, rather than just applying them for the restricted purpose of
showing ads, then that would be a lot worse. Money stinks. It's an
ethics repellant. If you interview 25 people and ask the following
question:
"given that your data will be used for other purposes, which
additional thing would make it worse, a) if it's used for ads, or b)
if it's sold for money"
I bet most people will find the money aspect more disturbing than the
ads aspect. So I would say, isntead of getting rid of the money-icon,
get rid of the ads icon. then you have icons to display the following
situations:

- your data is not used for other purposes
- your data is used for other purposes, but will not be sold or
bartered
- your data may be sold or bartered

I hope this doesn't muddy the waters.

Cheers!
Michiel

[Michiel (unhosted)]

On Aug 12, 6:01 pm, "Michiel (unhosted)" <mich...@unhosted.org> wrote:
>If you interview 25 people and ask the following
> question:
> "given that your data will be used for other purposes, which
> additional thing would make it worse, a) if it's used for ads, or b)
> if it's sold for money"
> I bet most people will find the money aspect more disturbing than the
> ads aspect.

i actually tried this out, here at CCC camp, which is full of privacy
aware computer programmers, potential power users and early adopters
of the sort of thing we're trying to build. The exact question i
posed:
> Given that your data may be used for purposes you do not intend. Then, which one feels worse?
> 1. Your data may be bartered or sold
> 2. Your data is given to advertisers

outcome:

7 people said '1.'
4 people said '2.'
14 people said 'both equal / no difference / neither gives me any
additional information, given the premise'.

so i was wrong then. based on this small survey, 56% of these power
users would only need one icon: "your data may be used for purposes
you do not intend, including potentially advertisers and potentially
barters/sale".

Sorry if this muddies the water even further ;)

Cheers!
Michiel

[Aza Raskin]

For a first-time launch, I think that simplification makes sense. It is
always easier to add than remove.

-- aza | ɐzɐ --
co-founder and cpo, massive health
@azaaza, www.azarask.in

> _______________________________________________
> drumbeat-Privacy-Icons mailing list
> drumbeat-Pr...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/drumbeat-privacy-icons
>