SINGAPORE: Would you provide your first-born child as payment to use social media? How about sharing your instant messaging data with national security and intelligence agencies?
You may answer no now but research suggests you would have most likely said yes if these clauses had been in the privacy policy or terms of services when signing up for a social networking service.
In 2017, more than 500 students were invited to join NameDrop, a fictitious social network, as part of an experiment. Only 10 students picked out the “gotcha” clauses described above.
Almost all agreed to the policies, with three-quarters completely skipping the policy documents. The rest spent slightly more than a minute on average – likely skimming but not actually reading – an 8,000-word legal contract. That’s about how long you’ll take reading this 800-word commentary.
This is the privacy paradox, as coined by Professors Jonathan Obar and Anne Oeldorf-Hirsch who designed the NameDrop experiment.
On one hand, we all agree that privacy and protecting privacy are important. On the other, we do not spend time to reading the fine print of the very document meant to provide that protection we demand.
Regulators are taking a stern view of such behaviour. More recently, China fined Didi US$1.2 billion for privacy law violations, including the excessive collection of information from both passengers and drivers, and ordered the ride-hailing conglomerate’s removal from app stores.
BUILDING TRUST WITH CUSTOMERS
But how much are we users to blame if we don’t know what we consent or not consent to?