Comments on: Can a Market for Privacy Succeed?

By: Jardinero1

Jardinero1 — Sat, 16 May 2009 03:19:39 +0000

The problem with the handwringing about privacy is that the handwringing is about a service which is essentially, non-essential. Google didn’t exist sixteen years ago and we could live without it today. It isn’t anything at all like food, water or a roof over your head. A little perspective is in order. Why regulate something you don’t need? Your typical Googler is using the service to troll for crap to buy or entertain himself with and their privacy vis a vis consumption and entertainment is really not that important to them. Why would we invite a collective(euphemistically government) solution to a problem that the vast majority of users can’t even see; with a service that is basically a luxury. What’s next on the hit list for regulation: Rolex, Louis Vuitton, Gumps?

The second issue I have is with, well, I’ll just say it: sloth. Mr Pasquale wants privacy and admits he could have it if he used, among other things, Lotus notes. But his privacy just is not worth those extra ten minutes a day. It’s much easier to use Gmail and spend hours researching, writing and arguing for his preferred collective(I suppose governmentally coerced) solution. Gee, thanks. I would rather you spend the extra ten minutes on Lotus notes, rather than imposing your solution on me. I’ll just opt out of using Google if I feel they are imposing on me. I won’t be able to opt out of a collective solution.

By: Logical Extremes

Logical Extremes — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 23:30:40 +0000

@geoff, the two main problems with the pure market approach are:

1. When (if !) the market reacts satisfactorily, damage has already occurred (and there’s really no clean-up for the internet).

2. The market may address the concerns of many people, but that can easily leave the minority out in the cold. Rights can be protected without undue burden on the affected corporations or on uninterested individuals.

P.S. I suspect that the “wave of the hands” may really have been a reference to the flawed way in which Ask.com implements their scheme. You may not be aware of the significant shortcomings of Ask.com’s approach.

By: Maryland Conservatarian

Maryland Conservatarian — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 20:52:53 +0000

…and let’s not forget the privacy enhancements that a universal health insurance plan will not doubt endow us with.

Private business wants my info because they want to convince me to give them my money; for the government, it just makes it easier for them to take it.

By: geoff

geoff — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:31:32 +0000

As always, you presume markets fail. Ask.com (and you don’t even mention Microsoft’s privacy principles) “competes on privacy,” but a simple wave of the hands and . . . presto–that’s meaningless. If your premise is true–that people other than you care about privacy–then market responses will cater to that, and will do so in creative ways that minimize the problems of self identification. And if people don’t have the demand for privacy that you do, then your efforts to impose your values on society should rightly fail.

What most gets me is the proffered (as usual, unsupported) presumption that business would never sacrifice access to your private information (or its ability to discriminate or to indiscriminately kill and maim mine workers) without coercion. Your concerns rest substantially on this flimsy notion of business intransigence. But competition in this space as in others is very real. Google may prefer to maintain as much access as possible to your private information, but that is an opportunity for Microsoft and Ask.com to differentiate themselves in the market against the market leader. You don’t think that’s incentive enough? You think Microsoft’s need to propagate the “nonopticon” is so strong that it will just ignore competitive pressures and allow itself to disappear into Google’s jet stream? Hardly.

By: Logical Extremes

Logical Extremes — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:28:54 +0000

Thank you! This is the first article I’ve seen that effectively distills the privacy dilemma encountered by individuals, i.e., the problem of drawing attention to yourself (and consuming additional personal resources) by objecting to privacy intrusions. Unfortunately, I don’t see much hope for an end to the arms race, one that only the most technically savvy individuals can stay ahead in.