ICT
Google unveiled new policy on privacy, to a chorus of disapproval last week. As alarm over the amount of data increases, we are handing over to companies that extract huge profit

Joss Wright and

Tom Chatfield

lock horns

on how we should be concerned

Dear Tom

The rise of the Internet, from obscurity to ubiquity in the course of several decades has had profound effects on our society and us as individuals. No one could have predicted how it would become significant, and no Canon predict with certainty how it will develop.

This is true of technology Excluding nonrecurring items, it is ALSO goal and, perhaps more importantly, the real exchange Is this is how the Internet and we Communicate interact with others. It takes you brought us an overwhelming benefit plan, provide a universal tool to communicate, to organize access to our lives and entertainment.

I concern most

What is with this tool that involves risks that we simply have not grasped. Encourage social networks to share with us our whole lives with our friends look, aim, by providing a service that, these networks see all that we share, and use it to classify this information, we predict and profile. These services are not "free" - we pay for 'em with our personal data, and the benefits are enormous.

It could be argued, and often by the heads of technology companies off, that "privacy is dead and that the benefits of social networks and services as to outweigh the loss easily perceived privacy. I would say we do not yet understand fully the power of shared data that we have, and that unwittingly give this information to Google, Facebook and more will shape the future of our society in ways we can not predict.

for all of human history, we have small scales and is operated in relative anonymity. Our words are heard by the few people close to us and are soon forgotten. We walk the streets without names or passers Knowing our history. The Internet began to change Will. Our words and our actions Cdn be easily shared with billions of people worldwide and archived indefinitely. The details of our lives can be found by simply typing into Google the name of our.

We need to understand the risks of this type of technology so that we can gain the full benefits of ICT. We need protections, both technical and legal, so that a small error can not devastate our lives that. We also need education to help us operate in a world where privacy is no longer state the nature of Being.

Dear Joss

I think you've hit the nail on the head

when you write that, by sharing data, we shape the future of our society in ways that can not be predicted. How then can we mitigate the worst consequences of the trends we can hardly envisage

recent economic history suggests that if anything, is that humans are poor at risk assessment. Can we expect to at least understand the argument before the risks Some of us have experienced in their worst form? Remove Perhaps not - at least not because of the intuition-defying divided between the daily pleasures of social networking and its potential impact in the form of espionage, stalking, identity theft monitoring status , and much more.

While his difficulty disagree with your call for effective protection and education, I find myself Worrying Another series of unintended consequences behind this warning: we risk polarizing the life in the paralysis of the debate, rather than face up to the thorny human food, he said.

I'm not sure how useful it is

, for example, flat broad prospects for most technology companies under the banner of "privacy is dead." Obviously, it Lots of money is being held today - and plenty of breathtaking cynicism With It - by extracting as much information as possible from staff that haste and without knowing it, and the eager and knowledgeable. Facebook is an initial public offering just the beginning and it will be both alarming and fascinating to see how ICT Heft Continuing to grow.

It's clearer

aussi, however, that "the grant and respect for life of all kinds has become an essential part of most business strategies are differences between users of acquisition, attention and effort - for all the faults of ICT, Google Creating emphasis Placed it in Google + - and many of the most disturbing trends Picking through the digital world are born more malice than ignorance of business.

that does not excuse ignorance or cynicism. I Purpose concern that most of "us" and "them" attitude-oriented high technology companies can hit the wrong targets Be, and the risks of privacy itself will become a scarecrow Rather than cry rallying.

Those who committed both present and potential crimes and abuse - Whether they are members of a society, the underworld, or the national government - must be stopped, and deploy the technical they have the approval and disabled. Goal of "we" who are really in the same covers most businesses it is tempting to demonize elected and it is easy to pillory as ignorant. Without them, there will be no such thing as real progress.

Dear Tom

The balance between privacy and

innovation is critical to this debate and I would not want to treat privacy as everything we propose more than one of several fundamental rights.

As you noted

, the pleasures of social networking are real and tangible Whereas Tends to privacy risks seem far away. From the perspective of companies also are real benefits, and risks of violations of privacy REMAIN're far. I think that's why we see, for example with Google Street View and exchange recent ICT privacy policy, a tactic of forgiveness rather than permission.

I quite agree that the Company

treatment, and indeed our governments, private entities as we have to fight every inch of the way is not productive. Certainly it is worth praising Google for the promotion of ICTs broad new privacy policy, even if we can not criticize the policy itself. Commitment, and Google is particularly active in the participation of researchers and activists, is vital.

risks, however, do not cost quite unknown. Examples of people who have revealed sensitive information about HAD, for example, their sexuality are the most familiar stories. We should be concerned about our aussi Become Our profiles combined with "real" identity: We already have the Google search results, we believe we hide and so are the views or opinions with which we can be disagree. Without being too alarmist, raising fundamental questions about our individuality, personal development and autonomy, and not. Through our in-ability to cope with this we wish to present in different social contexts

Can we mitigate the risks thesis without seeing 'em? I think we can try. If we drive a car with our close your eyes and your feet flat on the accelerator then we will not see the wall before he hit us, we must open our eyes, and I'd like a hand on the steering wheel - and preferably not one that is invisible.

Dear Joss

The distinction you draw between

apology and request permission to conduct has seemed a very useful - and remember that gibberish Policy All too aware of the disgraced public official "apology "where" conspicuous contrition is somehow Supposed to replace or make amends victimization.

What, then, are the best mechanisms to make amends and real as possible in the areas that we speak of Consequences?

I'm sure

We agree that driving on two flat with eyes closed is not a recipe for progress. I Remain objective less sour Whose Hands should be grab the wheel and that happens to apply the brakes. This is true especially when it comes to these overlapping issues you identify identity: o Ability to present to the world, we in ways to control and monitor the way the world is presented to us in turn.

In each case, I remember a phrase that American lawyer Cass Sunstein used in the history of 2009

We rumors

. I argued that the dissemination of false or harmful materials through open technologies should be legal offset by a "chilling effect", making it easier to issue notice of withdrawal and hold responsible for the content of service operators.

versions of this question and have resurfaced again, the Act online piracy stop motions for motions net neutrality. And what interests me more than the rights or wrongs of these proposals (Although I think we would be in large part on the thesis ACCORD) is the mass scale of the insoluble impasse They seem to be indirect.

Those with most to hide

- acolytes of sinister courageous revolutionary government - are, I believe, well aware that the grouping means Already HAVING not true privacy to all digital documents. For the rest of us, however, the question is whether Preserving open an unprecedented global decentralized network complies with the development of truly effective mechanisms to relax excess ICT.

This may well

Be unanswerable. In a sense we are already facing a miniature version of that question every day in the services we choose to use, and what we trust 'em. Should we be flocking towards the store, the walled gardens secure half of ecosystems such as Apple - or running as fast as in the opposite direction We Can?

I think the restrictions are enforced Less simple words the better, the real triumph of the Internet is also an open platform for the years of endless creativity. My hope is that means clustering to minimize damage to individuals who come from the exploitation inherent inspectability that brings the Internet. ': I ask for the Internet open and free to be for individuals, corporations for limited purpose. Let me say that those who INSTEAD Providing services in place by us in a position of power over us Themselves must be exercised with responsibility.

cooling effects are, of course, a powerful tool, whose results we experience every day. Unfortunately, this form of legal approach heavily favors companies that range have the resources to deliver endless legal battles and, in practice, often used to "chill" the creativity and freedom of expression. (I would recommend anyone to address chillingeffects.org, the phenomenon that document.)

I have not a single answer, and I do not think we are, we need a delicate balance of technology, law, consumer pressure and the Education District, and we need it globally. We need to discuss in advance, because we can not go back oz is released. Will we get things wrong, of course, aim We must take a holistic and long-term view of how technologies can affect, what we can, in turn, affect us. We would do well to watch the development of the environmental movement, which the ugly HAS ground for this kind of debate. We need to look proactive cluster environment means protecting the information we have created from long-term externalities are not immediately apparent.

Find best price for : --have----NetFlix----chilling----what----Piracy----Online----Stop----there----those----this----Chatfield--