Privacy vs. Security: differences and market perception
General statement: EVERYONE wants security, FEW want "privacy".
by "few want privacy", I mean that most users don't know the depth and breadth of information that is mined from their device and sent to various agents, like Google or Apple, tracker software vendors, app developers, website owners, etc. And when they find out that "things are being sent to servers" they don't care, because they don't understand what kind of insights can be gleaned about an individual via analytics, and even then, they go "I'm just a schlub from {wherever}, so what do I care what they know about me?"
The kind of privacy you get from security is not the same as "privacy". No one wants their devices hacked and to have malicious agents accessing their "private" data, whether or not it's information that could be used to perpetrate identity theft.
We all insist on SECURITY. It's why we have firewalls on our home routers and lock our front door.
A closed UNLOCKED door is usually enough for privacy, at work or at home, but it's nothing about security.
Is BlackBerry missing the boat here not making the distinction clear? Not stressing how their SECURITY is second-to-none, and with their Android initiative, they have given Android fans a device that has enhanced privacy?
I believe these distinctions are not clear in the minds of customers, either consumer or enterprise.
Consumers who choose Android have to KNOW they're bartering privacy for functionality, even if they wouldn't dream of giving up their SECURITY. That is to say, they may not be aware how MUCH privacy they're giving up for the services they receive, nor how the aggregated data could be analyzed to identify things about them (like "this morning you went to Starbucks and bought a coffee and muffin, and then you stopped off at the dry cleaners and got to work at 9:20 (you were late tisk tisk!)").
I am asking this question because in the past I've been known to overthink things that are just "well, of course!" to everyone else, but I can't shake the feeling that the message around BB's adoption of Android isn't clear enough, because they're not defining security vs. privacy and what that means to a smartphone user... they're not making it clear that the kinds of privacy sacrifices one must accept on "non-BlackBerry Android" have a bad side to them, and BlackBerry is lessening their exposure. Yes, a little fear-mongering but that's the whole point of any "security" or "privacy" message, and BlackBerry is soft-pedaling it, assuming that the audience just "wants privacy" or whatever without defining it.
Call it "manufactured demand" if you want to, and there's a fine line between "marketing" and "FUD" here that needs to be walked, but so far, "Privacy gives you privilege" is just worse than FUD, it's crud. They need to get this message sorted out, to make "Android powered by BlackBerry" something that people want moreso than just "Android, skinned by Samsung".
Side note: One other way that BlackBerry could better surface the "privacy" aspects of Android by BlackBerry: an OS level daemon / service that examines any "password" fields and warns the user of the weakness of the password. Some websites of course show a password strength indicator when you create a password, but BlackBerry could go one better by actually warning users that the password they just submitted is weak and should be changed if they want "security" and "privacy", because the weakest link is usually the human being, not the technology (the Apple iCloud 'hack' was mostly attributed to weak passwords, not to any technical failure of Apple... unless you consider "allowing weak passwords" a technical failure, which is debatable). Most users don't really get that they really REALLY need to use hardened passwords and not just put their device down without the screen locking. A "security and privacy audit" of the device would also be important, because if you don't have a lock screen password then why worry about Google Inc. knowing you were 20 minutes late for work?