Streams

Take Our Privacy Conundrums Quiz

Tuesday, March 04, 2014 - 04:10 PM

computer security surveillance lock data (Copyright: Maksim Kabakou/Shutterstock)

On Tuesday's Brian Lehrer Show, we're doing a full two-hour show on privacy. Here, some questions about where you draw the line when it comes to trading away your privacy in return for a particular service. We'll take these up -- and more -- on air starting 10am Tuesday. See the results of the survey here.

For all the questions below, 0 = "Completely Comfortable" and 5 = "Completely Uncomfortable" with trading away your privacy.

Tags:

More in:

The Morning Brief

Enter your email address and we’ll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.

Comments [12]

Jeff Pappas from Ct

Don't mess with our privacy
Regarding cars speeding etc
Let it be ,

Speeding

The USA needs Autobahns.
Distracted drivers are the hazard , not speed. Several years ago the NYS Police drove side by side at 55 mph ( the speed limit at that time ) on the NYS thruway causing an immense traffic jam.
Scientists who study flow patterns and chaos theory will confirm .
Most fast lane traffic moves 10-15 mph above the speed limit . Following distance and being alert is the key. Don't text don't drink. Pay attention, judge the speed of approaching cars before you signal to pass.
The faster you drive the less time your car is taking up space.
Typically on a long highway trip outside of rush hours there will be pods of cars traveling and blocking traffic if you can get in between these pods you can have open space

Speed pass could just send you a ticket by checking the time stamp on tolls, this or any other tech that auto reports drivers for tickets would be a huge privacy invasion

You could just charge an extra $ 100-200 per year to register cars who want to drive fast, get the troopers off the road doing radar and have them catch murderers and rape ists
This would be more economical

We had faster speed limits in the 50 s thru 70s
And cars were not as safe

Go figure

Aug. 01 2014 09:14 AM
ZANADOO

YOU'RE SNOOPIN TOO

Mar. 05 2014 01:51 PM
Deb from NYS

Isn't it an invasion of privacy for WNYC to encourage it's listeners to rat out our friends and family for not contributing? Isn't that a "slippery slope" to having the population be more and more comfortable ratting on innocent people to authorities? Please reconsider those spots during your fund raising periods. They really do make an impression.

Mar. 04 2014 04:18 PM
Bonnie from New York City

A company can't come to your door and arrest you or lock you up for 'being crazy' and the government can. the government is a very different animal.

Mar. 04 2014 11:09 AM
Marilyn from NYC

My orthopedic surgeon was sanctioned by United Health Care Medicare Part D plan because he had a similar name (different middle name) to a doctor who had lost his license. Consequently, his patients could not get any medications written by him (through United Health Care Rx). This had been going on for more than a year & a half until I switched to their Part D plan and got the same outrageous run around. I called my doctor's office to find out what was going on - they said, "oh you have United Healthcare..." - multiple calls to United Healthcare were useless - so I called Medicare and complained. It was straightened out instantly. Sometimes the patients have to complain to a higher authority to save the reputation of their doctors.

Mar. 04 2014 10:50 AM
Edith from Hackensack, NJ

It is my feeling that most people would be willing to be transparent about their driving knowing that it would make the roads safer and serve the great good IF (big IF) they felt that law enforcers and insurance companies would use this information in a manner that is truly fair and respectful. Unfortunately, most people don't trust either. We are at the mercy of both and we never have a say. If a cop issues a violation unjustly we have no say. In court a judge will always side with the officer. If an insurance company decides it is fair to raises our rates by $400 a month because we have a teenage driver in the home we have no say. Even if he doesn't have a car and even if he may happen to be a good driver. Not fair. The financial burdens that come with being at the mercy of both these institutions is enough for anyone to fight for any remaining privacy we may still have and to keep them from exploiting our obvious lack of power.

Mar. 04 2014 10:32 AM
sp from nyc

If you believe, after all the recent disclosures about privacy violations by government, private companies, and hackers, that anything collected will be kept confidential, you are delusional. Think about how any and all information ends up in huge databases sold to anyone for a few cents. Think about the company that built a database of rape victims and sold it. Since 9/11 we have been giving up our freedoms for a mess of pottage.

Mar. 04 2014 10:24 AM
Gianni Lovato from Chatham

This issues are so complex and variable, that I am afraid that anyone (even someone full of good intentions like yourself, Brian), might do more harm than good by looking for a one-size-fits-all solution.
In a perfect world, nobody (except an intentional criminal) should be afraid of being under surveillance, but (for example) how often does even the most innocent person finds him/herself in borderline situations, often not of their own doing?

Mar. 04 2014 10:19 AM
Gabe from Queens

Bernadette said she would be fine with having her kids monitored because it teaches them responsibility.

Monitoring does NOT teach responsibility. Monitoring ONLY teaches obedience.

Responsibility is what you do when nobody is watching.

Mar. 04 2014 10:16 AM
E from Brooklyn

These spheres should be kept as separate as possible because the information we share with companies is generally more descriptive than the government can legally acquire. That being said, Web companies should also be limited in what they are allowed to collect unless they are being completely transparent to the user. That "terms and conditions" contract people click on then just move along is not transparent. This should be simplified for all Consumers.

Mar. 04 2014 09:38 AM
John A

Prominent WNYC pages say "enter your email address, we won't share it". In this whole privacy debate, promises are not enough, expectation is nothing, we need legally binding contracts everywhere, and visibility at the congress level - public law.

Mar. 04 2014 08:40 AM
Cara from 10994

I could write an essay-length answer to each one of these questions because my feelings about them are so complicated.

Mar. 03 2014 04:50 PM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Sponsored

About Huh. (The Brian Lehrer Show Blog)

It's the Brian Lehrer Show's blog. Stuff that will hopefully make you say "Huh."

Feeds

Supported by