The point of the survey is to test whether or not people are aware of what google is doing with their data, not whether or not they're okay with it.
Transparency is at the center of the argument of the morality of surveillance. There is nothing inherently immoral about collecting data from a consenting party, but it's impossible to gain consent from consumers who don't even know that they're under surveillance.
If you are attempting to test peoples existing knowledge of a situation, you don't want to offer new information before you gauge their existing knowledge.
> The point of the survey is to test whether or not people are aware of what google is doing with their data, not whether or not they're okay with it.
I'm not sure that's true. From the article itself: "DCN surveyed a nationally representative sample to find out what people expect from Google — and, as with a similar study we conducted last year about Facebook, the results were unsettling." Since the notion of "expect" is baked into the purpose, I think some manner of "okay with it" is fundamental to the survey. (Because when people don't expect something, that's usually not okay.)
The point of the survey is to test whether or not people are aware of what google is doing with their data
But this is a difficult question as well. Speaking for myself, I cannot say that I am aware of what Google is doing with my data. I fully expect them to use my data for any and all purposes they can think of, and I'm not okay with any of that -- but I'm still not aware of what they're actually doing.
Transparency is at the center of the argument of the morality of surveillance. There is nothing inherently immoral about collecting data from a consenting party, but it's impossible to gain consent from consumers who don't even know that they're under surveillance.
If you are attempting to test peoples existing knowledge of a situation, you don't want to offer new information before you gauge their existing knowledge.