A Momentary Flow

Updating Worldviews one World at a time

The Internet and social media have opened up new vistas for people to share preferences in films, books and music, providing what Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg calls “frictionless sharing.” But a world of automatic, always-on disclosure should give us pause,” says Neil M. Richards, JD, privacy law expert and professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis. “’Frictionless sharing’ isn’t really frictionless – it forces on us the new frictions of worrying who knows what we’re reading and what our privacy settings are wherever and however we read electronically. It’s also not really sharing – real sharing is conscious sharing, a recommendation to read or not to read something rather than a data exhaust pipe of mental activity. “Rather than ‘over-sharing,’ we should share better, which means consciously, and we should expand the limited legal protections for intellectual privacy rather than dismantling them.” Richards says that what’s at stake is “intellectual privacy,” his term for the idea that records of our reading and movie watching deserve special protection compared to other kinds of personal information. (via Privacy perils of social reading | KurzweilAI)

The Internet and social media have opened up new vistas for people to share preferences in films, books and music, providing what Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg calls “frictionless sharing.” But a world of automatic, always-on disclosure should give us pause,” says Neil M. Richards, JD, privacy law expert and professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis. “’Frictionless sharing’ isn’t really frictionless – it forces on us the new frictions of worrying who knows what we’re reading and what our privacy settings are wherever and however we read electronically. It’s also not really sharing – real sharing is conscious sharing, a recommendation to read or not to read something rather than a data exhaust pipe of mental activity. “Rather than ‘over-sharing,’ we should share better, which means consciously, and we should expand the limited legal protections for intellectual privacy rather than dismantling them.” Richards says that what’s at stake is “intellectual privacy,” his term for the idea that records of our reading and movie watching deserve special protection compared to other kinds of personal information. (via Privacy perils of social reading | KurzweilAI)

Notes

  1. gh2u reblogged this from redwarf
  2. awesomeocelot reblogged this from wildcat2030
  3. redwarf reblogged this from wildcat2030
  4. cheap-wedding-dress reblogged this from wildcat2030
  5. iniqueinsomniax reblogged this from wildcat2030
  6. magandayaya reblogged this from wildcat2030
  7. jo1n-the-revolut1on reblogged this from wildcat2030 and added:
    I agree
  8. wildcat2030 posted this