An emphasis on harm-prevention is essentially a return to the pragmatic roots of our enlightenment tradition.
Purists who declare - for example - a perfect right to control personal information, run into trouble finding practical ways to make such ideal-based systems even begin to work, let alone work fairly.
The inherent conflict of interest between a right-to-know and a right-to-privacy CAN be solved, if one remembers something basic... that all of our four great enlightenment institutions - democracy, science, markets and justice - rely utterly on empowered citizens being able to hold others accountable.
Reciprocal accountability is the wellspring of freedom and... yes... of privacy too. But only people who know a lot can apply this tool. The one tool that also allows each of us to deter others from doing us harm.
All of this sounds a bit theoretical, but it is fundamentally a statement of faith in the pragmatic benefit of empowered freedom. And knowledge is the thing that empowers.
I go into this from almost every angle in The Transparent Society: Will Technology Make Us Choose Between Privacy and Freedom?
Congratulations to Google for once again traying to stumble toward a useful and mostly-not-evil path through the minefield of power.
Targeted Advertising is beneficial to consumers and it helps Google's finances by making their predicted ROI to prospective advertisers more convincing. We need the Advertisers to pay for these services.
However, a non-auto renewing, optional subscription model could be for Google's Services, that would allow consumers complete anonymity except bare essential log-in information and the option of session ID cookies as opposed to persistent cookies.
Let each user decide what balance is right for their concerns
An emphasis on harm-prevention is essentially a return to the pragmatic roots of our enlightenment tradition.
ReplyDeletePurists who declare - for example - a perfect right to control personal information, run into trouble finding practical ways to make such ideal-based systems even begin to work, let alone work fairly.
The inherent conflict of interest between a right-to-know and a right-to-privacy CAN be solved, if one remembers something basic... that all of our four great enlightenment institutions - democracy, science, markets and justice - rely utterly on empowered citizens being able to hold others accountable.
Reciprocal accountability is the wellspring of freedom and... yes... of privacy too. But only people who know a lot can apply this tool. The one tool that also allows each of us to deter others from doing us harm.
All of this sounds a bit theoretical, but it is fundamentally a statement of faith in the pragmatic benefit of empowered freedom. And knowledge is the thing that empowers.
I go into this from almost every angle in The Transparent Society: Will Technology Make Us Choose Between Privacy and Freedom?
Congratulations to Google for once again traying to stumble toward a useful and mostly-not-evil path through the minefield of power.
David Brin
http://www.davidbrin.com
Targeted Advertising is beneficial to consumers and it helps Google's finances by making their predicted ROI to prospective advertisers more convincing. We need the Advertisers to pay for these services.
ReplyDeleteHowever, a non-auto renewing, optional subscription model could be for Google's Services, that would allow consumers complete anonymity except bare essential log-in information and the option of session ID cookies as opposed to persistent cookies.
Let each user decide what balance is right for their concerns
好想你枣
ReplyDelete北京好想你枣
轴承
进口轴承
FAG轴承
NTN轴承
NSK轴承
SKF轴承
网站建设
网站推广
googel左侧优化
googel左侧推广
搜索引擎优化
铜米机
ReplyDelete