Media coverage of the threat to personal privacy from technology tends to follow a narrative in which privacy is a virtue, Big Tech its evil predator and government the good knight capable of protecting it.
But this narrative ignores the realities of modern life and may lead to devastating trade-offs. It fetishizes privacy, demonizes technology and assumes that government is the right institution to protect us.
We live in a networked world. The internet is built for sharing things at little to no cost. We forward our emails, capture photos on cellphones and tweet opinions, all activities that leave a trail of data that can be collected without our knowledge. Privacy — the right to be free from unwanted intrusion — no longer exists in an absolute sense.
Regulating tech companies could create problems worse than the ones we seek to solve. The biggest companies — led by Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google in the United States, and Baidu, Alibaba and Tencent in China — are data networks, aggregating information to provide valuable services underwritten by advertising, e-commerce or user subscriptions.
They have all become both hugely profitable and vital to the global economy. The Department of Labor estimates that employment in the computer and information technology sectors in the United States will grow 12 percent from 2016 to 2026, much faster than the average for all occupations. The companies also provide income to millions of non-employees, including Airbnb hosts, Instagram influencers, eBay sellers, and Uber and Lyft drivers. If we constrict their fuel — data — we may hurt not only the quality, cost and speed of their services, but also the drivers of growth for the world’s economy.
Innovation will also suffer. Our culture celebrates entrepreneurship and accepts failure as part of the process. As a result, the United States has been the architect of the new economy. But privacy evangelists have made villains of the very companies the world emulates. Rather than debate how to expand this economic opportunity, they call for fettering it.
The evangelists assert that regulating access to data or breaking up big companies will put that data back in our control. But this is naïve. We share our photos, emails and other personal data daily. Almost any individual or company, big or small, can collect and misuse it. Size doesn’t make a difference.
If safety is the actual goal of protecting privacy, consider this: Large tech companies may be our best line of defense against hackers, state surveillance and terrorists. These companies have the talent and resources to match well-funded and sophisticated adversaries. As the threat of cyberwarfare grows, shouldn’t we consider whether it would be prudent to break up companies that are our best allies against foreign and criminal intrusion?
Regulation also assumes that lawmakers understand how the internet operates. But many of the questions asked of the Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg at his most recent congressional hearing reflected a staggering display of ignorance about the businesses that have fueled America’s economic growth for over a decade.
Consumers, on the other hand, potentially can have more influence over these companies. When those companies violate the public’s trust, the news travels fast — often on the platforms themselves — and people stop visiting the sites, causing them to lose revenue. After a scary internet meme known as Momo spread, millions of parents unplugged their children from YouTube. Consumer uproar over a bug in FaceTime that allowed eavesdropping led to an emergency ad campaign by Apple.
Privacy advocates often point to European privacy rules as a model for the United States. Under those rules, the General Data Protection Regulation, companies that operate in Europe or handle European data are required to obtain consent before collecting data. They also must provide users with the “right to be forgotten” — the ability to delete their information upon request.
In theory this might sound beneficial. But some services we highly value, such as spam filters, require analyzing emails quickly — and without consent. Allowing everyone “the right to be forgotten” will enable people to erase information about bad actions that society might benefit from seeing.
And do we really want to emulate European rules if they undermine competitiveness? With the uncertainty over how to comply with those rules, entrepreneurs have looked to markets on other continents, strengthening big companies that can afford to pay big penalties for their privacy violations. The rules make it more costly to build a data network, which could explain why there are no European rivals to America and China’s big companies.
The lack of data networks will make it much more difficult for Europe to compete in building artificial intelligence applications that could allow us to live longer, more fulfilling lives, precisely because they collect and store huge amounts of data, which in turn makes algorithms more accurate. Engineers today are focusing on using artificial intelligence not just to improve shopping and social networks, but also to cure diseases, provide clean energy and better manage food supply and transportation systems. My own company, Collective[i], is a data network that uses machine learning to help companies manage revenue with the goals increasing economic prosperity and reducing layoffs created by uncertainty.
[Technology has made our lives easier. But it also means that your data is no longer your own. We’ll examine who is hoarding your information — and give you a guide for what you can do about it. Sign up for our limited-run newsletter.]
Expecting government to sort this all out reflects a blind trust that defies historical experience. The Fourth Amendment was written to protect against arbitrary searches and seizures of property by the government. Regardless of how you feel about WikiLeaks or Edward Snowden, they revealed that governments are watching us. People forget that Apple has fought to protect the privacy of iPhone users from the F.B.I. And that the Chinese government uses access to data to stifle dissent and profile minority groups.
Finally, it is time to stop glorifying anonymity. In the internet underworld known as the dark web, where users go to be anonymous, there are no Facebooks or Googles to set standards for speech, no opt-out provisions for individual users, no trail of data the authorities can use to prevent or prosecute crimes.
Young people who have grown up on the internet — so-called digital natives — have a much more nuanced view of privacy. They start with an awareness that their data isn’t private. They aren’t shocked that companies collect it, perhaps because they know that this collection enables them to get valuable services free. They know their texts can be sent all over the internet, that any of their emails can be forwarded to anyone else, that their chat rooms can be infiltrated by strangers — with or without their consent. But if a platform violates their trust, they stop using it.
If we untether ourselves from the old paradigms, we can open our minds to real solutions to expand opportunity and innovation while ensuring our safety. Where privacy is actually the issue, our laws should focus on deterring companies, institutions and individuals from misusing data to cause actual harms, such as slander, harassment, human trafficking, discrimination, fraud and corruption.
The big tech companies are neither heroes nor villains in this narrative. They create jobs and render certain jobs obsolete. They amplify the best and worst things about us. Simply saying that privacy infringements seem “creepy” or “scary” does not justify regulating all of these corporations.
Progress is a messy business. Instead of trying to preserve what was, let’s realistically debate the world we want. Privacy is a relatively modern idea, born of human progress. It should continue to evolve as we continue to progress.
Heidi Messer, a technology entrepreneur and investor, is a co-founder of Collective[i].
Like other media companies, The Times collects data on its visitors when they read stories like this one. For more detail please see our privacy policy and our publisher's description of The Times's practices and continued steps to increase transparency and protections.
Follow @privacyproject on Twitter and The New York Times Opinion Section on Facebook and Instagram.
glossary replacer
General Data Protection Regulation personal data
Source: Read Full Article
Home » Analysis & Comment » Opinion | Why We Should Stop Fetishizing Privacy
Opinion | Why We Should Stop Fetishizing Privacy
Media coverage of the threat to personal privacy from technology tends to follow a narrative in which privacy is a virtue, Big Tech its evil predator and government the good knight capable of protecting it.
But this narrative ignores the realities of modern life and may lead to devastating trade-offs. It fetishizes privacy, demonizes technology and assumes that government is the right institution to protect us.
We live in a networked world. The internet is built for sharing things at little to no cost. We forward our emails, capture photos on cellphones and tweet opinions, all activities that leave a trail of data that can be collected without our knowledge. Privacy — the right to be free from unwanted intrusion — no longer exists in an absolute sense.
Regulating tech companies could create problems worse than the ones we seek to solve. The biggest companies — led by Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google in the United States, and Baidu, Alibaba and Tencent in China — are data networks, aggregating information to provide valuable services underwritten by advertising, e-commerce or user subscriptions.
They have all become both hugely profitable and vital to the global economy. The Department of Labor estimates that employment in the computer and information technology sectors in the United States will grow 12 percent from 2016 to 2026, much faster than the average for all occupations. The companies also provide income to millions of non-employees, including Airbnb hosts, Instagram influencers, eBay sellers, and Uber and Lyft drivers. If we constrict their fuel — data — we may hurt not only the quality, cost and speed of their services, but also the drivers of growth for the world’s economy.
Innovation will also suffer. Our culture celebrates entrepreneurship and accepts failure as part of the process. As a result, the United States has been the architect of the new economy. But privacy evangelists have made villains of the very companies the world emulates. Rather than debate how to expand this economic opportunity, they call for fettering it.
The evangelists assert that regulating access to data or breaking up big companies will put that data back in our control. But this is naïve. We share our photos, emails and other personal data daily. Almost any individual or company, big or small, can collect and misuse it. Size doesn’t make a difference.
If safety is the actual goal of protecting privacy, consider this: Large tech companies may be our best line of defense against hackers, state surveillance and terrorists. These companies have the talent and resources to match well-funded and sophisticated adversaries. As the threat of cyberwarfare grows, shouldn’t we consider whether it would be prudent to break up companies that are our best allies against foreign and criminal intrusion?
Regulation also assumes that lawmakers understand how the internet operates. But many of the questions asked of the Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg at his most recent congressional hearing reflected a staggering display of ignorance about the businesses that have fueled America’s economic growth for over a decade.
Consumers, on the other hand, potentially can have more influence over these companies. When those companies violate the public’s trust, the news travels fast — often on the platforms themselves — and people stop visiting the sites, causing them to lose revenue. After a scary internet meme known as Momo spread, millions of parents unplugged their children from YouTube. Consumer uproar over a bug in FaceTime that allowed eavesdropping led to an emergency ad campaign by Apple.
Privacy advocates often point to European privacy rules as a model for the United States. Under those rules, the General Data Protection Regulation, companies that operate in Europe or handle European data are required to obtain consent before collecting data. They also must provide users with the “right to be forgotten” — the ability to delete their information upon request.
In theory this might sound beneficial. But some services we highly value, such as spam filters, require analyzing emails quickly — and without consent. Allowing everyone “the right to be forgotten” will enable people to erase information about bad actions that society might benefit from seeing.
And do we really want to emulate European rules if they undermine competitiveness? With the uncertainty over how to comply with those rules, entrepreneurs have looked to markets on other continents, strengthening big companies that can afford to pay big penalties for their privacy violations. The rules make it more costly to build a data network, which could explain why there are no European rivals to America and China’s big companies.
The lack of data networks will make it much more difficult for Europe to compete in building artificial intelligence applications that could allow us to live longer, more fulfilling lives, precisely because they collect and store huge amounts of data, which in turn makes algorithms more accurate. Engineers today are focusing on using artificial intelligence not just to improve shopping and social networks, but also to cure diseases, provide clean energy and better manage food supply and transportation systems. My own company, Collective[i], is a data network that uses machine learning to help companies manage revenue with the goals increasing economic prosperity and reducing layoffs created by uncertainty.
[Technology has made our lives easier. But it also means that your data is no longer your own. We’ll examine who is hoarding your information — and give you a guide for what you can do about it. Sign up for our limited-run newsletter.]
Expecting government to sort this all out reflects a blind trust that defies historical experience. The Fourth Amendment was written to protect against arbitrary searches and seizures of property by the government. Regardless of how you feel about WikiLeaks or Edward Snowden, they revealed that governments are watching us. People forget that Apple has fought to protect the privacy of iPhone users from the F.B.I. And that the Chinese government uses access to data to stifle dissent and profile minority groups.
Finally, it is time to stop glorifying anonymity. In the internet underworld known as the dark web, where users go to be anonymous, there are no Facebooks or Googles to set standards for speech, no opt-out provisions for individual users, no trail of data the authorities can use to prevent or prosecute crimes.
Young people who have grown up on the internet — so-called digital natives — have a much more nuanced view of privacy. They start with an awareness that their data isn’t private. They aren’t shocked that companies collect it, perhaps because they know that this collection enables them to get valuable services free. They know their texts can be sent all over the internet, that any of their emails can be forwarded to anyone else, that their chat rooms can be infiltrated by strangers — with or without their consent. But if a platform violates their trust, they stop using it.
If we untether ourselves from the old paradigms, we can open our minds to real solutions to expand opportunity and innovation while ensuring our safety. Where privacy is actually the issue, our laws should focus on deterring companies, institutions and individuals from misusing data to cause actual harms, such as slander, harassment, human trafficking, discrimination, fraud and corruption.
The big tech companies are neither heroes nor villains in this narrative. They create jobs and render certain jobs obsolete. They amplify the best and worst things about us. Simply saying that privacy infringements seem “creepy” or “scary” does not justify regulating all of these corporations.
Progress is a messy business. Instead of trying to preserve what was, let’s realistically debate the world we want. Privacy is a relatively modern idea, born of human progress. It should continue to evolve as we continue to progress.
Heidi Messer, a technology entrepreneur and investor, is a co-founder of Collective[i].
Like other media companies, The Times collects data on its visitors when they read stories like this one. For more detail please see our privacy policy and our publisher's description of The Times's practices and continued steps to increase transparency and protections.
Follow @privacyproject on Twitter and The New York Times Opinion Section on Facebook and Instagram.
glossary replacer
General Data Protection Regulation personal data
Source: Read Full Article