O'Reilly argues that the world is changing dramatically and so our decades-old policies, preferences and beliefs about personal privacy need to change, too. By loosening our privacy requirements, changing the consequences of disclosure of personal information where we can and considering the trade-offs, we could capture an incredible bounty of innovation for social good. And at a time of great peril, when such social innovation will be sorely needed.Zijn punt is, als ik het goed begrijp: we zijn allemaal aardige mensen, we streven allemaal naar een betere samenleving, dus waarom zouden we al die data niet beschikbaar stellen?
Op de vraag wat dit betekent voor mensen waarvoor privacy van levensbelang kan zijn, zegt hij:
I don't really have a good answer to that. Flickr and Youtube killed people in those places. We have to acknowledge that. People have to be aware and we could build more technology for places where you do need to be anonymous. If you're dealing with those kinds of dangerous situations, if you're risking your life, then you act differently than a normal person. Ultimately it is hard to remain anonymous. There are pro-privacy projects, like Tor, and it's worth putting in place as much as possible the infrastructure for anonymity before it's needed.Voorlopig ben ik het met DeAnne eens
When governments stop hiding data, when corporations stop hiding data, when congress people stop hiding their records about donations; then maybe it might be rational to have a discussion about personal privacy in the public sphere.Plaatje: Froboy
But to suggest that individuals should be willing to forgo data privacy in the hopes of some ethereal utopian world where that data won't be immediately used against them, is a terrible idea.