MESSAGE
| DATE | 2014-02-22 |
| FROM | Ruben
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Government regulation of Privacy
|
http://www.adamsmith.org/research/think-pieces/technology-privacy-and-innovation-in-2014
I think this misses the point all together..
Technology, Privacy and Innovation in 2014
Type: *Think Pieces
* Written by
*Charlotte Bowyer* | Tuesday 28 January 2014
Prediction lists for the coming year are always revealing, though
perhaps more of the current public mood than the future. A write-up of
the tech trends for 2014
by Fast Company's design blog is hardly controversial, but what is
interesting is how the areas they?ve chosen highlight the existence of
two wider and seemingly divergent technological trends. This apparent
conflict in the way technology is heading is far from problematic. On
the contrary, it shows our success in adapting and experimenting with
new ideas and in response to shifts in the social and political context,
without the need for any central guidance.
One thing clear from Fast Company's list is that 2014 will bring a
continued increase in the volume and depth of the personal data we
create. Things like Google Glass, the ?quantified self
?, hyperpersonalised
online experiences and the interconnectivity of the Internet of Things
all create new reasons
and mechanisms for data capture. This in turn increases the value of our
data to ourselves, the companies with access to it and, in some
situations, the state.
However, the article also predicts that 2014 will see increasing
concerns over cyber-privacy and a movement towards greater digital
anonymity. Users will increasingly chose to control their own data and
how this is profited from, whilst we will begin to discover the joy of
?disconnecting? from the digital world and see the creation of
intentional blackspots.
The fact that we seem to be embracing deeper technological integration
yet simultaneously finding ways to mitigate and avoid its consequences
is certainly interesting. Does this show that we?ve raced forward too
fast and are trying to claw back a space we?re realising we?ve lost?
It?s perhaps possible that this is the case, but far from giving us
cause for concern the two-track path we?re seeing shows the ability of
consumers and the tech sector to adapt over time, and in turn gives some
hints on the optimal tech policy.
Reservations about an increasingly digitized and tech-heavy world are
common, be it concerns over ?hyper-stimulation?, the aggressive
monetization of our digital footprint or wide-scale data collection and
its abuse by unscrupulous firms and governments. Concerns often partner
with conservatism; a desire to slow down the pace of technological
rollout and impose prior restrictions on how things may be used. More
often then not, government regulations and restrictions are cited as the
way to hold a check on technology and keep us safe.
For example, Google's announcement to purchase the home thermostat
company Nest was met with calls for a "much-needed conversation about
data privacy and security for the internet of things
".
However, despite the fact this conversation hasn?t actually taken place
yet, the same article expresses dismay and concern that the US
government has been reluctant to legislate in this fledgling area.
Clearly, security breaches and the abuse of sensitive information are
unwanted, and the more data collected the larger a slip-up could be.
However, as Adam Thierer points out ?conjectural fears and hypothetical
harms should not drive regulation
?.
Even when a problem can be identified, it?s unlikely that a committee of
concerned yet under-informed policy makers are best placed to deal with
it. A case in point is the EU?s Privacy Directive, the progress of which
has been continually stalled by conflicting interests and general
confusion. Moreover the pace of government action often runs way behind
business and societal developments, and policies forged to address a
pressing issue today may be redundant in five years? time.
Worse still, restrictions dampen innovation and risk choking off the
next big breakthrough ? clearly advances are less likely to come about
if we can?t use our resources creatively. This is particularly true in
fast-moving and dynamic technology sectors. It?s hard to imagine the
success of the internet if companies and experiments had been subject to
governmental approval and top-down control.
Ultimately, however, we should be reluctant to adopt state-imposed
?solutions? to technological problems is because the market is actually
incredibly good at dealing with these issues itself.
This is exactly what the two sides to 2014?s tech trends show. 2013 gave
us reasons to be more wary about what we give away about ourselves & put
online ? and developers have taken note. If we feel at the mercy of
data-sucking giants we can begin to avoid them. As the public tires of
Facebook
,
alternative social networks centred upon privacy and control continue to
emerge. Hate search engines knowing what you?re looking for? Try out
DuckDuckGo . Want greater control over your
data? Look out for indiePhone and OS. This new
wave of open-source and privacy-conscious technologies is marked by an
increasingly sleek user experience as it moves out of the realm of geeks
and into the mainstream.
Of course, not everybody will care about these things, and neither
should they have to. The beauty of a world where experimentation is
encouraged is that people can pick and choose what things (anonymity,
relevant ads, seamlessly connected devices and so forth) are important
to /them/, and make their tech usage decisions accordingly. In contrast,
government restrictions impose a cost on the whole of society and assume
that we hold the same preferences and level of risk aversion. When faced
with new dimensions to questions like ?How should companies use my
data?? and ?Is it wise to let technology to do /x/??, we?re more likely
to find answers we?re happy with through personal experimentation and
adaption than taking the word of interest groups and politicians.
We might get things wrong along the way and maybe even double-back on
ourselves, but its clear that so long as we continue to innovate, we?re
likely to solve our own problems and satisfy a range of preferences.
/Image source:XKCD Comics
/
|
|
