In a talk in London on 29 July, Eric Schmidt, Executive Chairman of Google, argued against over-regulation. His premise was that yes the advancements that technology brings can bring with it, in the first flush of that technology, problems; however, those problems that public opinion finds important will most often be solved by technology or by a procedural response to it. In other words give time for the system to self-correct - and presumably only if self-correction does not come (especially after some heavy hinting from opinion and also authority) then regulate.
We must accept that defining what aspects of the web and the Internet to regulate by law and what to regulate by self regulation guided by opinion (on the basis that if you do harm to the customer as a business, eventually the customer will do harm to you) is a very difficult conundrum. What seems clear is that over-regulation is not the answer - but what is over- regulation you may ask?
Eric illustrated his point with a simple example: when telephones became commonplace there was a concern from users that switchboard operators could over-hear conversations and intrude on privacy. Of course they could, and it may well have been a reaction to impose laws on this and in so doing limit what actions could then be taken to replace/improve switchboard operation. Instead no laws were created and relatively shortly the electrical switch was invented which solved the problem without the need for new laws.
I am concerned with the issue of privacy with respect to the web - particularly the self-harm that can be incurred by over-sharing using sites and services which appear private, but are not so - see Clarity in Internet Privacy. However, I am also concerned that legislation in this area, particularly different legislation in different jurisdictions, will not help and will in fact hinder as the world wide web effectively becomes fragmented, and the positive benefits of the web get inhibited. Furthermore, undoubtedly legislation that is rushed may well inhibit further beneficial innovation.
It is important therefore to try and improve privacy through exercise of self control guided by public opinion, and through the application of new technology, and give time for this to occur, before rushing to consider legislation.
The well known philosopher John Stuart Mill summed up this issue well in his essay
On Liberty:
"All that makes existence valuable to any one, depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people. Some rules of conduct, therefore, must be imposed, by law in the first place, and by opinion on many things which are not fit subjects for the operation of law.
What these rules should be, is the principal question in human affairs; but if we except a few of the most obvious cases, it is one of those which least progress has been made in resolving.
No two ages, and scarcely any two countries, have decided it alike; and the decision of one age or country is a wonder to another."
Mill goes on to conclude:
"That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
On the basis that the most egregious of privacy ills today is self-harm, it seems to be that awareness is our first step, followed by self-regulation, not governmental regulation.
