These five words are, as far as I can tell, the poison in the pudding of American politics today.
1) There is no "average" American. Everyone is close to a median in some metrics, and everyone is at out-lier in others.
2) The fact that huge outcry over the NSA is not visible might just mean we're looking in the wrong places. I've traveled across the country by land twice in two years, stopping at hundreds of rural campfires and urban watering holes. My experience is that people are very upset with the state and want their rights back. And that, one way or another, they'll get 'em.
Ultimately I'm relatively comfortable trading some measure of my privacy for convenient communication with people whose friendship i value and might otherwise struggle to keep in touch with.
If I'd purchased myself a physical good, regardless of it being a sex toy, I'm not sure i would necessarily expect to be entering into the same agreement.
My fridge phones home, but my kettle doesn't, my TV is a CIA outpost, but my wallet is just made of cows and Faraday cages. Granted the app connectivity would be a red flag, but ultimately there needs to be some kind of 'privacy mark' in the same way films carry a cert to allow us all to instantly understand what using it will entail.
For me that is the key difference here, and something that needs to change.
We are used to information deteriorating over time, and the non-zero cost of distribution and analysis limiting how far information about you could spread. Our heuristics that estimate risk are not prepared to evaluate risks that extend indefinitely into the future.
You say your are comfortable trading (some) privacy. Are you prepared for that data being sold/hacked/subpoenaed after 20 years? Are you sure you're comfortable with future machine learning tricks and other advanced analysis techniques reconstructing a detailed patter-of-life from several decades of data?
The worst ways to abuse all this surveillance data probably hasn't been discovered yet. Nobody should be comfortable trading away their privacy, because we don't even know the risks. We only know that risk only increases with time.
A "privacy mark" doesn't help (much). Instead, what we need is an education campaign similar to anti-smoking efforts that attempt to realign the common wildly inaccurate perceived risks to be a closer match to the actual risks.
If my dildo is publicly known to have reported its use whilst I was also known to have been watching Trump's Presidential Address (don't ask!), I would have an out in that all such data has long been known to have been poisoned. Spam is our friend.
(See also my comment to parent post.)
That was the direction we were wanting to go with the Private Play Accord mentioned at the end of our DEF CON presentation: http://www.privateplayaccord.com/
We got as far as drafting an initial star-based grading system but turns out writing code is easier... :)
Was made aware of this earlier initiative today: http://designswarm.com/blog/2015/09/what-does-it-do-a-propos...
Is a log of ip addresses and times that your smart toaster was used acceptable?
What if said smart toaster really needs to contact a server to decide exactly how long to heat the toast for?
It's difficult to have an internet-connected widget with an App that doesn't generate some kind of information in logs somewhere.
I agree with you but I think it's something that needs laws around it, and unfortunately can't be simplified down to your one sentence solution.
Unfortunately with the apathy of the general population and the flat-out corruption of our own untrustworthy governments, I think those laws are unlikely to materialize.
But the problem is not only in the IP addresses. Companies just want to save everything they can collect. Remember Amazon Echo that was storing everything said to the device on the server. And almost every mobile app now has Google Analytics or similar system inside.
It is obvious that companies do this for profit because the information could have some commercial value and could be sold later or used for marketing purposes. But the users want the device just to serve its purpose and not to be a modern implementation of a telescreen.
I think this problem can be only solved by government regulation too.
So for example a store owner that has a CCTV system would not be allowed to keep the records forever or recognize faces on the video and sell this information to marketers. A security system should serve just its purpose.
> It's difficult to have an internet-connected widget with an App that doesn't generate some kind of information in logs somewhere.
The server can be run on the phone or user's computer or router. Why should the data from the toaster travel across the world?
No, but companies will continue to do it if there is no cost and no consequences, which is the current state.
> The server can be run on the phone or user's computer or router. Why should the data from the toaster travel across the world?
Exactly. But people should be given the information to be able to make that decision.
Either mandatory rules on what any IoT appliance is allowed to send and rules on how much of and for how long that information will be stored, or a system that will reasonably allow consumers to make the decision between devices.
But nothing will happen if the consumers continue to not care and buy toasters that send your toasting information back to China.
We need policy changes that separate the choice to have privacy from state/corporate knowledge of our intimate lives from the choice to make connections with friends, advertise, reach out to the world, etc. The market as it currently exists is not an adequate mechanism to achieve these changes.
The business model of people-farming and super-stasi state spying is the polar opposite of the utopian promises made by many in this industry at the emergence of the internet, and there need to be concrete proposals to stop it from every arena, because there will certainly be far more dire consequences as it evolves if it isn't checked in a comprehensive, thoughtful way.
Migrating away from GMail or Google search? Now that's something I don't think I can pull off. I tried switching to DDG several times and I could never stick with it. It's the Linux desktop of search engines.
..that's what Reddit and Hacker News are for :)
What about deleting the always listening FB spyware craplet that comes pre-installed on your non-rootable phone? How easy is that?
There is, because some metrics are more important than others, and many metrics you might care about tend to correlate.
It's easy to _say_ you're upset about something. It's another thing to take action or even vote (with the ballot, your feet or your wallet). How many people out there who will say they are vaguely "concerned" about Company Xyz's service actually have an account at Company Xyz and use that service?!
There are a number of pro-privacy representatives, and one or two senators, so it is not like people aren't votinig at all, but if you don't get a choice then you cannot be blamed for failing to make the choice.
That's the heart of the matter. The major parties have a virtual monopoly; we're as trapped as voters as consumers are in a market monopoly.
I think the way we fix this is weaken the monopoly of the major parties, possibly with things like ranked voting: http://www.fairvote.org/
Which Maine is trying to institute: https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_Ranked_Choice_Voting_Initiativ...
Perhaps we should try to institute laws that break up parties if they get too big the same way we can break up corporations that are too big? Monopolies being bad an all.
I don't think the ~15% of people who are at poverty level care as much about privacy as they do about getting a better job or getting proper healthcare, for example. You'd have to form a pretty strong voting bloc just to offset those votes.
You vote 3rd party for someone who is and bitch at whichever major candidate wins regardless (which is why they resort to form letters, so at this point its newspaper outlets/townhalls/etc).
Democracy doesn't end at the voting booth and you have to put continual, sustained effort to create change. Look at the GOP running and hiding from their townhalls over Healthcare. Imagine if that was for privacy-related issues (or whatever). Sure, it may not work with the GOP but the Democrats might seriously consider adopting it to try to split voters away from the GOP.
Who do you think is buying all those guns?
> 2) The fact that huge outcry over the NSA is not visible might just mean we're looking in the wrong places. I've traveled across the country by land twice in two years, stopping at hundreds of rural campfires and urban watering holes. My experience is that people are very upset with the state and want their rights back. And that, one way or another, they'll get 'em.
If they genuinely wanted to be alone, in substantial numbers, they wouldn't be voting for either major party in the US which are both "big government" parties.
I understand its a popular meme and thing to bitch about. The reality of people's actions, the degree of effort they expend in that direction, and so forth sends a completely different message.
Actions speak far louder than words.
Now, you can argue those aren't "their" actions but if you do so you are conceding the OP's point that the problem is ignorance.
To be honest, I think its a combination of those things. Some people "care" but not more than they care about enforcing a certain social conservative world view. Some people simply do not have the time/energy for politics and simply believe the words that politicians say.
Let me know when those people delete their FB accounts and stop using most of Google's services.
Sure they would, so long as they are trying to have their vote directly effect a change. Outside of "sending a message that I support someone else," the logical voter must consider that their vote will only change an outcome if there's a tie between candidates, and it's usually obvious which two candidates that tie will be between. Such a voter will need, then, to choose the candidate between those two that they would prefer, even if they hate them both. To do otherwise may help send a message, may help them feel that they are uncompromising in their moral fortitude, or may feel good, but their actual vote will not matter.
That's one of the reasons that ranked voting systems are so nice. It allows you to say "I prefer X to Y if it comes down to that, but I much prefer N,A,D, and Q over them both."
That logic presumes that A over B results in government getting less involved in people's lives which is what the person I was responding to argued.
If you are genuinely voting on that issue as your primary and core issue, "sending a message" even if it renders your vote otherwise worthless is the only option that has the slightest chance of success. Voting for A or B (as both do nothing in relationship to your single issue) will always ultimately bring about failure.
I guess what I'm trying to say is if people never stand on principle, the principle isn't relevant and is not a genuine want but rather a trivial wish of no real impact. I can also wish to win the lottery or to become a millionaire through an inheritance too. It doesn't mean its a genuine desire I take action on.
Also, older generations are less concerned. They understand technology less, so my assessment is they kinda throw in the towel. Maybe 10-20 more years of those 20-30 year olds at those watering holes and we'll be the majority of the country--at that point they'll have no choice but to hear us, because we'll be working at and running those media companies, congress as well. That's my hope. Otherwise, it means violent revolution. The state can't be trusted anymore.
I think that's likely true with a huge segment of Americans, but the definition of "the state" probably varies widely. For example, there are folks that want municipal police powers curtailed and the EPA unleashed, while other folks want the opposite.
As an example: In rural America restriction on gun ownership are pure crazy talk, a gun is a tool just like a shovel. You keep varmint off your land, scare bobcats away from the sheep, and keep your home safe because the police are 30 minutes away.
If someone in NY is carrying a gun it's a huge liability to the people that are in close proximity to that person. There are also police and emergency services very nearby.
In rural America your house can burn down before the fire department arrives. Gravel roads aren't a problem. Largely what you do on your land doesn't have any affect on anyone else. Nobody should be able to tell you what you can flush into your own septic system.
In a dense city what you flush down the toilet can cause big problems for other people. Well maintained roads and an understanding that you should walk on the left and stand on the right contribute to sense that your actions affect others and what they do affect you.
I don't see enough respect for how rightfully different the perspectives of people are.
Curtail them both. I'm building a barn, not a running an open pit mine. A federal agency shouldn't have a say in what kind of barn I build for my own personal use on my own personal property.
Less is more when it comes government.
In the abstract, you're right, but I feel like it's worth noting that there's nothing exceptionally ignorant about voters of _today_. If anything they're more knowledgeable than any voters in American history.
What makes you think that? It certainly doesn't seem true based on direct observation.
It seems to me that Americans today a lot more certain of various false things than they were during the 1970s, 80s, or 90s.
Not that people haven't always believed lots of incorrect things, but if we could (magically) get the data and find out, I'd be very surprised if it didn't show people believe more incorrect things today than in (say) the 1980s and they are more confident (sure they are right) in their wrong beliefs as well.
Of course, this is one of those very tricky subjects, and I am not aware of any high-quality data on it. So I could be wrong, my experience may not be representative, and maybe people were historically as ignorant as they are today. But I doubt it.
The "filter bubble" and the explosion of authoritative-looking-but-totally-full-of-shit sources are probably major contributors to the phenomenon.
Also, I think that the ratio of basically correct, informative information to garbage info has inverted. For example, IIRC in the 1970s and 1980s, seems to me people had maybe a dozen or two dozen regular news sources. Most news sources -- major newspapers, ABC/CBS/NBC news -- were mostly accurate.
That's certainly not the case today. The overwhelming majority of information most people intake is completely inaccurate or fabricated. It's not really "news", it's advertising, propaganda, for-profit clickbait, whatever. And yet, many people seem to have the same confidence in it and it seems to shape their beliefs in a similar way.
It feels like people know more things than in the old days, but if they know more incorrect things, then I think that's "more ignorant" when you tally it up.
But there's a lot of other stuff also going on today. It feels more organic, rather than intentionally directed, but I think the effects on the collective mind are still huge.
The clickbait articles that don't have any underlying motivation other than getting people to click on them (along with those that do). The web of people out there providing each other confirmation of truly nuts conspiracy theories, whether it be "the Sandy Hook massacre of children was a government hoax" or "thousands of children have gotten autism from the measles vaccine". Youtube comment threads.
There's no cohesive agenda behind a lot of this stuff, and no ultimate benefit achieved by any party. It's more like these things are memetic prions, folding onto each other and interacting in their unthinking inanimate way, having significant effects on the host but without any intention driving them.
I've always read it as "average countryman in the relevant metrics" (here views on privacy/knowledge of implications of mass surveillance), rather than suggesting that there is an hypothetical average person who fits for all contexts. It's obviously flawed, but I don't think it's a useless concept.
Relevant Plug : John Oliver Interview with Snowden (23m45s)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M&t=23m45s
Also, the "You have got nothing to hide" argument fails.
So they started to listen to him, more and more, they were willing to do what I had and just... pay attention. They accepted that maybe the guy who knew so much, might not be the guy who was best at expressing all of what they knew (without being given more a chance than normal).
The thing is... that was high school, and a small group of friends. In theory science and tech journalism should be doing for you and Snowden and others, what I was able to do for my buddy. Unfortunately if I had been modern science/tech journalism, I would have given our friends a half-assed explanation, plugged my own views, and taken credit for all of it.
I think it is about a mindset change. I remember in the 90s when people were cautious about using credit cards online. Then, I remember in the early 2000s when a relative, in her 70s, called me, angry, because I published my genealogic tree online (only with names and relationships). A few years ago she started using Facebook.
I had the exact opposite and had to call a relative, in her 70's, to remove me and my bit of the family from her genealogic tree online.
I'm actually surprised that you would break someone else's privacy like that.
I wasn't aware genealogy was private. I'd assume the opposite, as birth and marriage records are public matters. If I were to post a public tree and someone berated me for it, I'd be dumbfounded at their reaction.
And you are totally in the right.
It is if a large part of your family is poor or you're related to a felon or political extremist. Sure it's not as private as bank records but it's not the kind of thing anyone with a brain would want to make it trivial to find.
Security questions by default often include Mother's Maiden name.
There has never been a point in the past 20 years when someone's maiden name was difficult to find.
Indeed, I sent an e-mail to my family when I published the genealogical information online. She sent me her concerns years later. It seems she haven't paid attention to my e-mail.
most likely had nothing to do with her direct privacy
My dad was very interested in genealogy, and one of the things that frustrated him for years was a particular dead end:
An at the time young, unmarried woman a few generations back in our family tree had a child, and then moved in with her sister and her sisters husband.
The father was named as so-and-so, "currently employed as a travelling hat maker, resident in Bremen".
A "travelling hat-maker from Bremen" was not particular common in Norway at the time. He should have existed in the police register in Oslo for that time period (people had to register on arrival back then), and he's not. My dad found no trace of him in any other relevant registers from that time period either to my knowledge.
All clues point to the girl inventing this hat-maker to hide that she either didn't know the father or that the father was someone it shouldn't be, or possibly that the father of her child gave her a made up story. At the time not giving the name of the father would have been a crime, hence it was not that strange to see likely false accounts.
But here's the thing: That branch of the family had taken to the idea of a German ancestor that gave them justification for an upper-class sounding double-barreled last name, and even though that decision had been made a couple of generations before my dad started talking about this, that branch of the family reacted with intense anger at any idea that the woman in question had not been truthful, and were furious that he would not let it go. It was already scandalous enough that she was unmarried. That the name of the dad might be fake was too much.
This came up in the 90's. People got angry over something that happened about 150 years back in time, several generations before even the oldest family members involved were born.
Which goes to show that sensibilities around morality has an astounding power over people.
(I still occasionally for fun do searches for the various possible spellings of this supposed hat-makers name, and have not found a single German family using it)
I'll probably read it.
thanks.
This can vary. My grand-grand-grand-father (Romanian) married a Transylvania Saxon girl who had traveled across the Carpathians in order to run away from her brothers (I think this was around 1880-1890). She was the village's only homeless person, so to speak, had her head shaved (possibly because of lice), nobody was looking at her, apart from my grand-grand-grand-father who chose to marry her. Even though it doesn't paint that great of a picture when it comes to our family's ascendency (as my grand-grand-grand-mother was no aristocrat or anything, quite the contrary) the story got told for every generation since then.
That's part of the problem: people don't have the solidarity to want to protect other people's privacy.
Also:
"an incident with Scarlett Johansson photos that eventually lead to a ten year prison sentence of perpetrator Christopher Chaney."
Exchange the word sexually exploited with privacy invaded:
"It is a sexual violation. It's disgusting. The law needs to be changed, and we need to change. That's why these Web sites are responsible. Just the fact that somebody can be sexually exploited and violated, and the first thought that crosses somebody's mind is to make a profit from it. It's so beyond me," the "Hunger Games" actress said.
http://www.kpopstarz.com/articles/123222/20141012/fappening-...
reminds me of this episode of black mirror https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shut_Up_and_Dance_(Black_Mirro...
The original suit claims "Defendant never informed Plaintiff that it would monitor, collect, and transmit her Usage Information" and "Plaintiff never provided her consent to Defendant to monitor, collect, and transmit her Usage Information".
And the proposed settlement requires changes to disclosure statements.
> but didn't actually do anything beyond collect standard usage data.
Leaving aside the disclosure question, the product category itself raises the question of what do we consider "standard usage data" in this context? (We talk a bit about this aspect in our DEF CON presentation follow-up TEDx talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxRSjC1rPmA )
The app transmitted: time of use (ergo duration); internal device temperature; and, real-time pattern & intensity settings. It was also aware of geographic location of the people using the app. Why does the later matter? At a minimum because adult toys are illegal in some locations.
There's already examples of home automation units, car telemetry loggers and heart pacemakers being used in law enforcement investigations so it's not a stretch to imagine real-time sex toy data also being used.
I believe that developers and manufacturers have a responsibility to the people who choose to buy/use their software/devices to not just "collect all the data" particularly when their product is of an intimate & personal nature.
I mean if you did make "dick pics" and were bothered about people seeing them then you likely did it wrong and your ISP had access and your phone provider had access and your backup service provider had access. At that point, why would you - short of guilt - be bothered that the government might have potential access in a situation where you were accused of a crime. If you're on the "nothing to hide" side of things, how does that push you to any other position.
In short, it's pithy, and Oliver probably made good talk-show level comments but I don't see it as really being a persuasive way to couch the argument for greater privacy.
The issue is that many of the things people share on Facebook/Twitter/etc are actually "taboo", and people's evaluation of them is just wrong. As an example, the story of Justine Sacco, a person who would arguably be even more aware than the average of the impact of public statements, still did not manage to correctly evaluate that the things she was sharing on Twitter would lead to a serious backlash and witch hunt against her.
The worst part is, you won't necessarily get instant feedback, like Justine did. You may post something "among your friends"(in reality, publicly on Twitter), all your friends may agree with you, and then several years down the line you will be judged by a completely different social group, looking through your records. We don't tend to accommodate evolution in people's beliefs as much as we do for ourselves - try the defense "I'm not that kind of person anymore" to strangers and see how often it works out(no need to try on your own, just check out how easy convicted felons have it when trying to reintegrate into society).
Overall we were pretty happy with the degree to which the actual issues got coverage (albeit with varying degrees of accuracy/sensationalism)--even the Daily Mirror managed to communicate the key points.
There isn't good evidence that sexting was ever the primary use case for Snapchat. This is more of a meme than reality.
And given the mindset of him & his fraternity brothers in their emails, this isn't surprising: http://valleywag.gawker.com/fuck-bitches-get-leid-the-sleazy...
Tbh, debauchery and sex are what frats are about. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that's been to a large college. Even at the least, you should have a basic understanding that frats are not representative of normal society.
Many people have been in frats and transitioned to successful careers (and "toned it down.").
I think the problem is that we haven't matured as a culture yet to handle this amount of accessibility and sharing. The pendulum is currently in the full share quadrant but will swing back as the consequences of over sharing mount. I expect social media to look vastly different in 10 years time but lessons are only ever truly learned the hard way.
Is there any reason to think that the average person actually cares about it in this case?
This appears to be a class action suit with anonymous plaintiffs - I'm a member of lots of class action suits that I really don't care about, not even enough to return the post card to make me eligible for the $5 or whatever the paltry payout ends up being.
Your president's spokeswoman is going on about Obama spying on Trump through his microwave: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/13/kellyanne-co...
I seem to remember email security being a key election "issue" as well.
To pretend a person is above criticism, or that these issues are 2 sided is absurd. This is an instance of what that poster (imo) is talking about.
Edit: what user jmyles is talking about. People are close to the median and also outliers. Saying you hate obama (or implying you disagree with a single policy during his administration as that post did) isn't a tacit endorsement or ballot punch for someone running in an unrelated election after he left office. That logic is very flawed
Communication needs to be better for sure. The burden of that is on us - we know what's going on, but misinformation and technical jargon can make that knowledge less useful.
To the broader point, though: I don't think it's necessarily that people don't care about privacy. It may be partly that some people don't know to what extent we share our lives online, but also partly that the convenience of using online services - shopping online, chatting online, etc - outweighs whatever perceived privacy risks exist. (I say perceived because they may not completely understand what gets shared, how, and when.)
Because sex actually has a political dimension (or conscious lack thereof) as well
The bedroom is the one refuge from the state/government and you can bet any attempts to take that intimacy away are going to be met with high resistance.
I can assure you, this is not the prevailing reason nor do most adults view the world through this lense.
It's purely an emotional knee-jerk, the same as when you see nuclear reactor plans being turned down because of public outcry.
There are some things the public is exuberantly irrational about where any deviation will cause business failure.
There are good reasons for nuclear power but it's not irrational to say nuclear power poses risks. The public simply calculates a different expected value in the unlikely event of a problem because the outrage produced by such an event would be so high.
Also, It doesn't have to be a conscious lens for it to have an effect on norms/behavior
I'm speaking of the U.S.A. Foundations never go away and the U.S.A was founded on puritan values, i.e shameism. There is no motivation, it's a rooted tradition that hasn't been uprooted yet.
> There are good reasons for nuclear power but it's not irrational to say nuclear power poses risks. The public simply calculates a different expected value in the unlikely event of a problem because the outrage produced by such an event would be so high.
This topic, nuclear vs. similarly-outputting-source, has been beaten to death. Nuclear power is one of the less dangerous, yet high output, sources of energy. The public "eyeballs" their calculations with old data, anecdotes, and inconsistencies.
> Also, It doesn't have to be a conscious lens for it to have an effect on norms/behavior
Yes, but then it starts to sway towards irrationality. When you can no longer understand the basis for your actions, how can you figure out if they're rational or not?
If you don't know your reasons or logic, then by simplification your actions are irrational.
Or do they have different expectations depending on what they represent in the relationship?
As far as the Snowden story goes, the public is the state. The public represents the product when it comes to Google and Facebook. In this case the public represents the customer, buying a product that appears to not come particularly cheap at that.
If these devices were handed out to anyone who wanted one, akin to a Google/Facebook account, the expectations may have been different. Or, to put it another way, if you had to pay to have a Facebook account you may have different expectations about what they will do with the data.
People have been very steadily cooked from a low heat, and they're just starting to realize that it's getting hot in there. Unfortunately, like the frog, it brings them no closer to understanding the cause, their contribution, or any obvious solutions.
...And frankly when so many people here use FB, I find it hard to judge them.
Forfeiture of privacy as a free citizen to higher powers is absolutely okay but if my dildo starts recording how many times I've been penetrated with it and uploads it to the internet-pitchforks for all.
Such is the mechanism of the common man/woman/ze. Incapable and unwilling to spend the extra brain power associated with understanding the underlying system but quick to get angry and play the victim when that oversight finally burns him.
"A man who procrastinates in his choosing will inevitably have his choice made for him by circumstance." - Some old white guy.
In this case those who procrastinated in their acquisition of understanding and knowledge of systems and signed their privacy away, were unable to reverse their outcome when it turned out to be not in their best interests.
I am not following your suggestion that this article is indicative of disinterest. Are you suggesting that this is a really big news story or that this case might be a watershed moment? Because I don't see that. In fact I have had NPR on all day so far and haven't heard this mentioned.
My comment regarding the position of this story in the news cycle was only meant to be relevant to the question of whether the OP felt that this case was going to be a catalyst, nothing more.
It was in no way meant to trivialize the importance of the case. That's an assumption you made, incorrectly.
It was not meant to be a commentary on the importance of privacy or the importance of the conversation surrounding privacy which is something I care deeply about.
Incidentally, what are the "broader cultural forces at play"? That's a pretty nebulous if not completely banal statement.
It's an unpopular idea on HN but this.
If we unveiled how the insurance industry is using / mining / buying social data to hike the rates on people they deem as higher risk, you would have a national debate front and center.
As long as it doesn't directly affect them, most people don't care.
Mining my social data would be a welcome change, honestly. At least they would be trying to use more data points and be competitive.
Are you familiar with Actural science?
Your average American didn't understand or get worked up over Snowden and the prospect of a surveillance state; not for long anyway. We don't have much of a national conversation about it anymore, Obama isn't remembered for his actions around the NSA, bulk collection, etc.
Most people also don't seem to care too much about Facebook, Google, etc. collecting their browsing data and selling it to advertisers.
People very much care about the privacy of their sex life.
Did this company violate their own privacy policy?
It looks like the company settled rather than drag things out through court, but didn't actually do anything beyond collect standard usage data.
The company didn't even give it to third parties. So it isn't that they did something worse than NSA Facebook, but that people are more sensitive to the privacy of their sex lives than other things.
We wonder why Snapchat first rose to popularity for sexting while most people couldn't care less about GPGing their emails or using Signal day-to-day.
Either most people don't care about privacy or we, the tech community, do a poor job of connecting things like encryption to what people do genuinely care about.