Given the flurry of activity around privacy in the media these days, it’s difficult to argue consumers have no understanding that the data generated from their devices are collected by public and private sector entities alike. In fact, a recent Pew Research study found 62% of Americans believe it’s impossible to go through daily life without having their data collected. 81% believe they have very little or no control over the data collected by private sector companies. Amidst this clear perception of lack of agency over our data, why are we still compelled to share so much of it so freely?

鉴于近来媒体上围绕隐私的活动日趋活跃，很难说服消费者不理解其设备生成的数据是由公共和私营部门实体收集的。 实际上， 最近皮尤研究中心(Pew Research)的一项研究发现，有62％的美国人认为如果不收集自己的数据就不可能度过日常生活。 81％的人认为他们对私营公司收集的数据几乎没有控制权。 在对数据缺乏代理的明确认识中，为什么我们仍然被迫如此自由地共享这么多数据？

The New York Times published an interactive feature as part of its ‘The Privacy Project’ vehicle this week, which cheekily points out how easy it is for companies to extract data from us via our web-enabled devices. The feature, a game entitled “Can You Defeat the Privacy Chicken?,” challenges readers to see how far they are willing to go in sharing personal information before they ‘chicken out.’ The game carries its own terms and conditions, though you are encouraged to dismiss them, as you probably always do (unless you are a friendly neighborhood privacy geek). The terms specify a player does not need to share real personal information, but go ahead and give it a go to see how far you make it!

纽约时报本周在“ 隐私项目”工具中发布了一个互动功能 ，该内容愉快地指出了公司通过支持Web的设备从我们提取数据的难易程度。 该功能名为“ 您能击败隐私鸡吗？ ，” 向读者提出挑战，让他们了解在“淘汰”之前他们愿意分享个人信息的程度。 该游戏带有其自己的条款和条件，尽管我们鼓励您像往常一样将其解雇(除非您是友好的社区隐私怪胎)。 该条款规定玩家并不需要真正共享的个人信息，而是继续前进，给它一个去 ，看看你有多远做到！

This game may seem absurd, but it does prompt one to wonder about the last time you shared ‘harmless’ information that could end up being used against you. I only made it to Level 6 — sharing my location, which is often the default behavior for any smartphone app, was too rich for my blood. In some cases, you may gain a ton of utility from being able to use an app’s maximum functionality by providing certain data points. You may have no qualms about sharing with a trusted provider like your mobile banking, travel, or news source apps. However, what the game illustrates is our willingness to part with information companies can use to create tremendous value for their bottom line in exchange for mindless fun.

该游戏可能看起来很荒谬，但它确实促使人们想知道您上次共享“无害”信息的可能性，这些信息最终可能会被用来对付您。 我只达到了第6级-分享我的位置信息(这通常是所有智能手机应用程序的默认行为)对我的血液来说太丰富了。 在某些情况下，您可以通过提供某些数据点来使用应用程序的最大功能，从而获得大量实用程序。 与移动银行，旅游或新闻来源应用程序之类的受信任的提供商共享内容时，您可能没有任何约束。 但是，游戏说明了我们愿意与信息公司分道扬can，他们可以利用信息公司为其底线创造巨大价值，以换取无聊的乐趣。

How can it be that privacy is overwhelmingly popular, yet we still behave so lackadaisically?

隐私如何受到压倒性的欢迎，而我们仍然表现得如此卑鄙？

隐私悖论 (The Privacy Paradox)

Researchers call this notion the “privacy paradox.” The privacy paradox suggests we believe lack of privacy is a problem, but we don’t behave accordingly. Some have suggested this is due to a lack of understanding of when companies collect or how they use personal information, but in the wake of increased transparency and media scrutiny, this is unlikely to be the full story.

研究人员将此概念称为“ 隐私悖论” 。 隐私悖论表明，我们认为缺乏隐私是一个问题，但我们并没有相应地表现。 一些人认为这是由于对公司何时收集或如何使用个人信息缺乏了解，但是随着透明度的提高和媒体审查的增加，这不太可能成为事实。

Though no one has fully explained the cognitive dissonance evident in practice between caring about privacy and sharing data with abandon, it’s not inconceivable to hypothesize this might be a combination of several underlying factors:

尽管没有人能充分解释实践中在关心隐私和放弃共享数据之间明显的认知失调，但可以想象这可能是几个潜在因素的结合，这并非不可想象：

1. Conditioning — Internet business models evolved to present free content to encourage adoption to achieve scale. In order to subsidize the content creation, most companies turned to advertising. As advertising technologies became more and more sophisticated, more data was collected in order to inform the advertising served to users. As part of the value exchange, users generally must provide personal data in order to use services for free. We’ve gotten so used to this requirement that we accept it as the price for access and don’t think twice before agreeing to the fine print.

   调节 -Internet业务模型演变为提供免费内容，以鼓励采用以达到规模。 为了补贴内容创作，大多数公司都转向广告。 随着广告技术变得越来越复杂，越来越多的数据被收集以告知投放给用户的广告。 作为价值交换的一部分，用户通常必须提供个人数据才能免费使用服务。 我们已经习惯了这一要求，以至于我们接受它作为访问的价格，在同意细则之前不要三思而后行。

2. Awareness, without depth — While many tech savvy consumers know their devices and apps collect their data, we may not realize the extent to which this information is combined, modeled, and activated with other profile data about us downstream — or how it can be shared further and abused.

   无深度的意识-尽管许多精通技术的消费者都知道他们的设备和应用程序会收集其数据，但我们可能无法意识到与下游有关我们的其他配置文件数据进行组合，建模和激活的程度，以及如何共享这些信息进一步和滥用。

3. The “Future Me” problem — Remember when you splurged on a new pair of shoes or ate that second slice of cake? We sometimes overvalue how we’ll feel in the present vs. the future. When it comes to data privacy, we might like the idea in theory, but value the utility of a service requiring us to provide personal information more in the present moment than we do the downside of future risks. We are willing to accept the consequences in the moment and label them as a ‘later problem.’

   “ Future Me”(未来我)的问题-还记得当您在新鞋上挥洒一下或吃了第二块蛋糕吗？ 有时，我们高估了现在和将来的感觉。 当涉及数据隐私时，我们可能会在理论上喜欢这个想法，但重视服务的实用性，要求我们在当前时刻提供更多的个人信息，而不是承担未来风险的负面影响。 我们愿意立即接受后果，并将其标记为“以后的问题”。

4. Reluctant acceptance — Perhaps we really do understand the exchange we are making, but we believe there is not much we can do in protest if we want to participate to the fullest in culture and society. Those 62% of Americans Pew Research surveyed were on to something here — they believe resistance is futile because web-based services have become so interwoven with our daily lives that we might as well accept their data collection practices.

   勉强接受-也许我们确实确实了解我们正在进行的交流，但是我们相信，如果我们想最大程度地参与文化和社会活动，我们无能为力。 在接受Pew Research调查的美国人中，有62％的人在这里–他们认为抵制是徒劳的，因为基于Web的服务已经与我们的日常生活紧密联系在一起，我们不妨接受他们的数据收集做法。

While any combination of these factors may explain how we’ve gotten to a boiling point regarding privacy and enterprise, it remains to be seen whether changes in consumer attitudes and behavior will be enough to stem the data flow. There is some good news for the privacy chickens out there — there are many moderate steps you can take to protect your data while still participating in modern society, huzzah!

这些因素的任意组合都可以解释我们如何达到有关隐私和企业的沸点，但是消费者态度和行为的变化是否足以阻止数据流尚待观察。 有一些关于隐私保护小鸡的好消息-您可以采取许多适度的步骤来保护您的数据，同时仍然要参与现代社会！

你能为这个做什么？ (What can you do about it?)

In 2017, App Annie found Americans have an average of well above 80 mobile apps downloaded on their smartphones during any given month. Given 36% of us use between 11 and 20 mobile apps monthly, we generally give companies many opportunities to capture our data. All of this data collection making you queasy? Not to fret, there are simple steps you can take to limit your exposure without totally swearing off your favorite apps and spending too much time reading privacy policies:

App Annie在2017年发现，在任何给定月份中，美国人平均在其智能手机上下载的移动应用程序均超过80种。 假设我们有36％的人每月使用11至20个移动应用程序 ，那么通常我们会给公司带来很多捕获数据的机会。 所有这些数据收集使您感到不安？ 不用担心，您可以采取一些简单的步骤来限制曝光，而不会完全宣誓不喜欢您喜欢的应用程序，也不会花费太多时间阅读隐私政策：

1. Find the right ‘app diet’ — If you pay close attention to your mobile and desktop Internet use, you’ll likely realize you don’t use or need most of the apps you have on your devices on a day-to-day basis. These apps could still be collecting data about your location or other activity while not in use depending on your settings. Take a page from Marie Kondo’s book, and if those apps are not giving you joy, delete them — or at the very least, check the settings to ensure they can’t mine your data.

   找到正确的“应用程序饮食”-如果您密切关注移动和桌面Internet的使用，您可能会发现自己每天不使用或不需要设备上拥有的大多数应用程序。 这些应用可能在不使用时仍会收集有关您的位置或其他活动的数据，具体取决于您的设置。 从Marie Kondo的书中翻页，如果这些应用没有给您带来欢乐，请将其删除-或至少检查设置以确保它们无法挖掘您的数据。

2. Decline non-essential cookies & trackers — Apps are increasingly required by regulators and device OS developers to provide notice and choice around cookies and location tracking before collecting your data. Some of these trackers are essential for the working of the service, but you can safely opt out of most of the others.

   拒绝不必要的Cookie和跟踪器-监管机构和设备操作系统开发人员越来越需要应用程序，以便在收集数据之前提供有关Cookie和位置跟踪的通知和选择。 其中一些跟踪器对于服务的运行至关重要，但是您可以安全地退出其他大多数跟踪器。

3. Check privacy ratings before downloading — A number of different organizations have emerged as app watchdogs who will do the work of reading privacy policies for you. My favorite is CommonSense Privacy Program, which has a particular orientation towards ensuring children’s privacy is respected. Their evaluation process is based on the internationally accepted Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs) and takes criteria such as privacy norms in the country of origin, means of personal information collection, and level of transparency into account. About 20% of apps evaluated pass CommonSense’s ratings process, but if this is too rigorous, there are others to which you can compare their reviews.

   在下载之前检查隐私权等级-许多不同的组织已经成为应用程序的监督者，他们将为您阅读隐私权政策。 我最喜欢的是常识隐私计划 ，该计划特别注重确保尊重儿童的隐私。 他们的评估过程以国际公认的公平信息实践原则(FIPPs)为基础，并考虑了诸如原籍国的隐私规范，个人信息收集方式和透明度等标准。 约有20％评估过的应用程序通过了CommonSense的评级程序，但是如果这过于严格，您可以与其他人进行比较。

In the end, awareness and being deliberate about who you trust with your information are the most important things to keep in mind. We can influence data collection practices by opting for alternative services with a greater respect for user privacy. In this way, we can all vote with our thumbs when it comes to which services we choose to download.

最后，要记住和最重要的事情是对信息的信任和认识。 我们可以通过选择更加尊重用户隐私的替代服务来影响数据收集实践。 通过这种方式，当我们选择下载哪些服务时，我们所有人都可以投票赞成。

That’s all for this week, dear readers!

亲爱的读者，这就是本周的全部内容！