It will take a great deal of time and research to understand the best approach to provide a balanced right to privacy in the age of data ubiquity whilst protecting core democratic values like free speech.
>> Skip straight to the video >>
John Hendel, writing in The Atlantic, forecast a US/Europe split; with Europe heading down the regulation route as it attempts to protect individual privacy - through concepts such as the right to be forgotten; whilst the UN Special Rapporteur Frank La Rue's report on internet freedoms (pdf) clearly favours free speech - as does the US, given the First Amendment right.
A case from 2009 serves as a good example of the general conflict, when a German law firm attempted to get the names of convicted murderers removed from a Wikipedia page.
Boundaries have been drawn, positions adopted. Privacy is dead! Privacy in communications is a sacred right! Cookies are the root of all evil!
It's clear to us at Open Digital Policy that the answer will lie somewhere in the middle. Clearly if data protection regulation is too strict, it will hamper innovation and prevent availability of many useful features; it will impinge on utility. Similarly, if there are no incentives to respect privacy, clearly this will undoubtedly have a negative impact on our quality of life.
We're not defending the rights of marketeers to have unfettered access to personal information; quite the opposite. But we acknowledge that features based on data mining can be useful - product recommendations, automated reading lists etc. And yes, we acknowledge the dangers of personalisation too, as it can narrow horizons by locking individuals into their own personalised walled garden - narrowing future horizons based on past behaviour.
We need to find an appropriate balance, and I personally argue we must allow time for social solutions to evolve, just as social norms dictate the topics for gossip and speculation that are acceptable in any given circle of friends when chatting face to face.
Yes, the internet changes a lot, but it doesn't change everything. And regulators beware, for the law is a limited and blunt instrument when it comes to changing behaviours; especially when, presently, there are no clear solutions.
Social norms will evolve and adapt. The desire to protect our own reputation from the stigma associated with off-topic gossip will still act as a driver to maintain standards online, just as it has does in the real world where no democratic government would attempt to lay down detailed regulations over what we say in person, and to whom.
Yes there are challenges, such as anonymity. But there is even a social solution to dealing with anonymous sources of information: trust. The level of trust we afford each source of information is based on what we know about that source.
In parallel, if all of the following is true, competition in the provision of services on the open market will see ethical businesses rewarded:
- Society, and consumers in particular, understand the implications of divulging personal information
- Corporations using personal data offer transparency and clarity in how data will be used
- Market competition is open and fair
Many theories remain unproven, questions unanswered. But there is an obvious first step: to offer consumers clarity in privacy.
We as social creatures need to understand how far and wide our actions are being transmitted - who our audience is - in order to behave appropriately in any given setting.
That is true in the street, as it is online. It's just that we don't fully understand what (if anything) constitutes a completely private space online. We don't understand what is the online equivalent of a living-room chat with our family, or a pub chat with close friends.
Open Digital Policy chairman and co-founder Julian Ranger takes over with his 6-minute-and-forty-second Pecha Kucha talk Clarity in Privacy given at April's Digital Surrey event:
Slides are available on SlideShare.
@JamesFirth
No comments:
Post a Comment