It is a very well know fact of life that I have nothing to hide. But there is a question: Are policemen people? This is a very crucial question. And I am seriously asking you this. Are policemen people? Of course they are not! Or are they? Policemen are made out of the same material as people. And they talk and walk like people. They even think like people. Maybe... So they might make mistakes and be terrible, just like people.

So is it good to give a policemen your private information like perhaps your credit card? Why would you not give a policemen your credit card? They are not people. He will surely not spend it. And not even think of spending it. Like people would. And they will take very good care that nobody else will spend it. And if somebody will spend it. It's for the greater good. On the other hand, if you don't want to give the policemen your credit card, you are most definitely a criminal. I have nothing to hide. I will give anyone anything at request.

Also not people, are companies. They too will not do anything bad what so ever to me. There are no bad people in any of the companies. All employees are equally amazing. There was never a case of personal information ever used for anything bad. So it's good to trust companies. Or is it?

# Naïveté

A lot of people feel like it's not even possible to survey them using the technology that they are using. Or that it's never going to happen. Since most people think that people are either good. Or their are very disciplined. When most often than not, it's not what it is.

I know grannies that think that only people who are disciplined and nice will ever get accepted to companies that develop software. When in reality those companies are founded by dumbasses, douchebags and [lizard people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg). Then other dumbasses download that software and install on their machines that are connected to the internet. And the first group of dumbasses now have total control over the computers of the second group of dumbasses.

There are 3 ways to stop dumbasses from spying on you:

 - To turn off the computer. Sometimes it's easier said then done, since most computers are designed by similar dumbasses. And the battery is not very easy to take out. You have believe that the computer is turned off.
 - To disconnect from the internet. Which is easier said then done, since most operating systems and internet providers are designed by similar dumbasses.
 - To delete the software made by dumbasses. Which is easier said then done... Try deleting google from an android phone.
 
The point that I'm trying to make. Dumbasses control the world. We live in an era of dumbass infiltration. And even I am a Blender Dumbass. So why read this? Go do something productive instead.

# Does data show that people are lazy?

Apple. Which is a terrible company. Made a business decision to show people how "not terrible" they are. By allowing users to EASILY STOP SURVEILLANCE from services that are not from Apple. Meaning that if Apple sees a dis-service that might collect more data about users than Apple themselves. They will shut that data-collection off. But also making a cheap promotion from it, by making it an option in the phones of people.

Then comes the BIG FACEBOOK DROP in share value.

Let me tell the story a bit more linearly:

 - Facebook collects a lot of Data from users to feed their ad machine.
 - Apple collects a lot of Data from the users also.
 - Apple sees that Facebook is a competitor that needs to be stopped.
 - Apple introduces a feature on iMonsters that let's people choose whether they want to give data to Facebook. Of course not giving them an option to choose whether they want to give data to Apple.
 - **People choose not to give their data to Facebook.**
 - Apple is now successfully has much more data than Facebook.
 - Facebook's share value goes down.
 
Those are the same people that might say "I have nothing to hide". But now that the question of whether to collect data or not is placed in an easy to access place. Without too much need to do anything. This makes them click the option not to give their data. So much that a company looses share value significantly.

So wait a second. People say that they will tell anything about themselves to anyone. But not when there is an option to stay private. Is it just laziness? Or are we getting into a deeper problem?

# Memory consolidation

[Memory consolidation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_consolidation) is a category of processes that stabilize a memory trace after its initial acquisition. It is a system of refining resolution of the memory, without necessarily having the details stored.

For example you might have remembered that you waited in line for a doctor. But when thinking about it. You may see a picture of you sitting. Since you know that doctors usually have places to sit for people who are waiting. And you might remember that you were sitting on a chair. Since most often, people sit on chairs. The only memory that you actually had, was that you was waiting for a doctor. Those other details were filled up using your other knowledge of the world and common sense through Memory consolidation.

This is a very helpful mechanism of [compression](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_compression) to store memory more efficiently. But as with other forms of compression. It may introduce [compression artifacts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifact). Like for example you may had talked to a person in a grey suit. But you remember that person being in the more normal black suit. Since you just weren't interested in the color of the suit. So you didn't remember the color. And so through memory consolidation, you recreated the memory as if the person wore a black suit. Which seemed like common enough feature.

Sometimes it even may result in a weird memory confusions. Like you may have actually remembered the grey suit. But when recalling the conversation this detail was not important, so you still remembered the person in a black suit. Until the question about the suit color arrived.

Okay, but, I hear you ask, what does it have to do with the rest of the article? Here is a thing. Memory consolidation is used very often to give reasons for impulsive ( stupid ) behaviour. Basically, a lot of times, people do stupid shit, and then remember it as if they did it on purpose because reasons. The reasons came only when remembering the action. The action it self was done mostly with no reason, or with a different reason. But through memory consolidation the brain is asking the common sense to explain why something happened in more likely way.

So imagine that you started running and then, after a few minutes, some dogs started running after you. You remember the situation as if you are running and there are also dogs running. That's all. No further details were memorised. Which is a more or less accurate memory. But that's all you have. So when another person asks you to explain why you were running in the first place. A memory to which you don't have. You ask your brain for an answer. So you state that the reason was. The most likely scenario, giving that you remember dogs, that you were running away from the dogs. But in reality, dogs came later. You just failed to remember it. You gave yourself a reason for your own stupidity. And this reason is now could be stored as well. For later re-use. You warped the situation in memory so much that now you yourself believe that you were running away from the dogs.

Basically, this strange system in the brain comes up with all kinds of reasons for things that you did stupidly for no reason or for stupid reason. Or when you know that you've made a mistake. But you don't want to admit it. Your brain may go through the same memory consolidation to try and come up with reasons of why you were right in a given stupid situation. When in fact you was not right at all.

Sometimes it even may be used to explain luck. When you gain something randomly, you may attribute it to some action of your through memory consolidation. The opposite is also true for non-luck.

Now imagine a person installs and gets used to a piece of proprietary spyware and when you confront that person with the spyware aspect of the crap that they are using. The person thinks it's a question of why would someone let other people spy on them. And tries to find a memory to answer that question. But since this factor was not even considered while choosing the software, there is no memory to answer this. Thus a memory consolidation is used to come up with one. Why didn't I think of the spyware. Well, perhaps I don't mind people to spy on me. Or I have nothing to hide. When in reality, this was not even thought about when making the decision at all.

This is different then asking people up front. Do you want people to spy on you? Which lead to a lot of people choosing "no" and ultimately dropping the share value of Facebook. Nobody wants to be wrong. So they will defend their previous choices. Even though most of their defence will come up only when you will try to attack them. But pointing the same stuff in a form of a choice will probably lead to a better resolution. 

# Conclusion

This is weird that we are learning from Apple of all companies. But I think a useful lesson is always useful. Software is also just information. Problems start when you are not allowed to use it, modify it, or share it. Apple can try and sue me and all of you for using this information. But I bet, they will not win the case. So the lesson, even thought coming from Apple, is still a Free Lesson. 

Try thinking when you talk to people how you are wording yourself. And if you are not convincing, try thinking what was wrong. Read about all kinds of neurology and psychology and observe. Apple and Microsoft still have more money. But if we will have a lot better skills to promote our messages. Our message will win.

**Happy Hacking!!!**

