On privacy, talk and actions are poles apart

Anything goes? Not quite
Despite this lament, a much smaller percentage expressed a willingness to draw a hard line against disclosing certain kinds of personal information. In addition to the results relating to ID chip implants and high-tech licenses, about 43 percent said they'd accept universal ID cards, often cited as a surveillance tipping point by privacy advocates. Some 57 percent said they'd be willing to submit biometric information when entering of leaving the country.

Not all data-gathering behaviors were deemed acceptable:

• 92 percent of users said they do not want the government tracking their Web surfing habits or reading their e-mail, electronically tracking their automobiles or eavesdropping on telephone calls.
• 62 percent said they were concerned or very concerned about the government obtaining a list of telephone numbers they had dialed.
• About 70 percent rejected video surveillance that created indefinite photographic records. 
• 67 percent said they weren't willing to surrender more information or submit to intense questioning at airports — at odds with their support for biometric data collection at airports.
  

Consumers are savvy
While the results might seem paradoxical, Gartner researcher Avivah Litan said they actually show consumers are savvy. People don't see privacy as a black and white issue, she said, but they instead pick and chose the things they oppose.

"People's opinions are more subtle than we give them credit for,” she said. “There are nuances. ... If they have nothing to hide, they are not worried about it. They are averse to government tracking but welcome improved safety at the cost of giving up personal information."

She said she was not surprised that almost 1 in 5 respondents were willing to have a chip implanted in their skin because of the way the question was posed, she said.

"People are open to having their medical information on a chip. If you are in a car accident and can't speak, it might save your life," she said. "Now if you said, 'Would you submit to an implant the government could use to track you?’ they probably would have all said no."

The divergent results would be expected even if, in the end, those two questions would likely lead to similar outcomes, she said. A chip implant that begins with medical information could soon be expanded to include information accessible by prospective employers, government officials and even shopkeepers — perhaps you have an unpaid parking ticket, or your shoes are from last years’ fashion season, or you are infected with the AIDS virus. You would no doubt be treated differently as a result.

People with serious medical conditions have likely thought through this complex issue, Litan said, and likely have much stronger privacy concerns.

"There's probably no one with AIDS in that 18 percent (willing to have a chip implant)," Litan said.

How you ask the question
The main distinction that usually arises in privacy surveys stems from Americans’ built-in skepticism of government, Ponemon said. Americans are very wary of being tracked by their government, but otherwise behave in ways that indicate they are open to sharing their digital lives. As is generally the case with polls and surveys, the way the question is asked skews the results. If researchers ask, "Would you do this to be safer?" respondents are much more likely to say “yes” than if asked "Would you do this to be tracked by the government?"

In 2002, The Pew Research Center for People and the Press found the importance of question wording in a poll it conducted.  Simply by dropping the word “your,” from a question, its researches obtained a starkly different result.

When asked “Should the government be allowed to read e-mails and listen to phone calls to fight terrorism?” 33 percent replied “yes.”  But when asked, “Should the government be allowed to read your e-mails and listen to your phone calls to fight terrorism,” only 22 percent replied in the affirmative.

In other words, it is OK for the government to read other people’s e-mails.

MORE FROM PRIVACY LOST

Privacy Lost Section Front

Part 1: Technology, security erode our rights Part 2: Chasm between  talk, actions Part 3: EU, U.S. laws differ greatly Part 4: Smart licenses focus debate Part 5: For celebs, price of fame rises Survey: Concerned about losing privacy? Interactive: 10 real privacy ‘nightmares’   Share opinions on privacy message board Comment: Why has Congress failed Amy? Comment: Balancing privacy, convenience Privacy Lost Section Front   Add Privacy Lost headlines to your news reader: