From the news article I understood that this was an experimental setting, where participants were asked to perform actions in order to prevent data sharing with apple. From the news article I also interpreted that it is indeed "possible" (in the technical sense), but zero of the participants managed to get it right.

Being a software engineer / computer researcher / highly technical person (which puts them / us in a technical competent bubble), it might have been an actual surprise that zero participants managed to perform the task successfully. Add to that that they might have sourced participants from the student community in a technical university, and I don't see why their surprise is "theatrical"

Edit: As expected, quoting the original article: "The participants were recruited using the following methods: (1) posts on the university’s official LinkedIn page and (...)

Participants represented a wide variety of educational and professional backgrounds, including Computer Science and IT, Architecture, Business Administration, Art and Design, Industrial Engineering, Economics, Research and Development, and unemployed participants (...)"

Probably more like they were expecting better privacy practices than what Apple provided. One can be very competent but still surprised at just how bad things can be.

Otherwise we would be discrediting a lot of climate researchers when they are surprised that things are progressing faster than expected.

I'm thinking there's considerable difference between:

- Predict that a gigacorp, which has been lucratively monetizing user information at gigascale for many years, would prove to be darn good at protecting its sources of user information. In a world where dark patterns, incomprehensible T&C's, "just say yes" user behavior, corporate misdeeds, etc. have been well-known things for many, many years.

and

- Predict the future of the planet's climate years ahead, when state-of-the-art weather forecasting can't yet manage 2 weeks.

(Admitting that I can see a good climate researcher using "surprised" very frequently - both for public consumption, and to summarize "our very-advanced-but-usually-wrong model was wrong yet again".)

That's overly harsh, and a disingenuous analogy to draw.

(Guessing that you are not referring to my 'Either their "surprise" was purely theatrical (or journalistic gloss)' phrase.)

Do you view "university researcher" as pretty-prestigious & cool social status tier - which is provided "because they deserve it", for people who spend years grinding their way up an academic XP ladder?

Or do you see "university researcher" as expense which the public pays, because it expects considerable public benefit from the supposedly-highly-skilled work which the researcher does?

Complex dark patterns, default-to-share, users who just keep clinking Yes, and relentless monetization of user information have been routine & well-known things for quite a few years now.

I hope I wouldn't come into this with either of those preconceived notions, as it sounds like a false dichotomy. University researchers are a mixed bag; I was one myself for a brief stint in a former life. Generally speaking the vast majority of them have at least a genuine desire to advance human knowledge.

> Complex dark patterns etc.. have been routine & well-known things for quite a few years now.

That doesn't put some kind of ban on experts being surprised.