Mike Godwin, The Los Angeles Times; A Facebook request: Write a code of tech ethics
"The question isn’t just what rules should a reformed Facebook follow.
The bigger question is what all the big tech companies’ relationships
with users should look like. The framework needed can’t be created out
of whole cloth just by new government regulation; it has to be grounded
in professional ethics.
Doctors and lawyers, as they became increasingly professionalized in the
19th century, developed formal ethical codes that became the seeds of
modern-day professional practice. Tech-company professionals should
follow their example. An industry-wide code of ethics could guide
companies through the big questions of privacy and harmful content.
Drawing on Yale law professor Jack Balkin’s concept of “information fiduciaries,” I have proposed
that the tech companies develop an industry-wide code of ethics that
they can unite behind in implementing their censorship and privacy
policies — as well as any other information policies that may affect
individuals."
Showing posts with label information fiduciaries. Show all posts
Showing posts with label information fiduciaries. Show all posts
Monday, May 6, 2019
Thursday, April 12, 2018
After Cambridge Analytica, Privacy Experts Get to Say ‘I Told You So’; April 12, 2018
Nellie Bowles, The New York Times; After Cambridge Analytica, Privacy Experts Get to Say ‘I Told You So’
"In their own lives, privacy experts are now fielding a spike in calls from their relatives asking them for advice about protecting their personal data. Engineers are discussing new privacy projects with them. Even teenagers are paying attention to what they have to say.
For many of the developers, this is the right time to push ahead with testing more privacy solutions, including more advanced advertising blockers, peer-to-peer browsers that decentralize the internet, new encryption techniques, and data unions that let users pool their data and sell it themselves. Others want to treat tech giants more as information fiduciaries, which have a legal responsibility to protect user data.
And for the first time, many privacy experts think internet users will be more willing to put up with a little more inconvenience in return for a lot more privacy.
“This is the first blink of awakening of the world to a danger that’s been present for a long time, which is that we are exposed,” Mr. Searls said. “Cambridge Analytica is old, old news to privacy folks. They’re just the tip of the crapberg.”"
"In their own lives, privacy experts are now fielding a spike in calls from their relatives asking them for advice about protecting their personal data. Engineers are discussing new privacy projects with them. Even teenagers are paying attention to what they have to say.
For many of the developers, this is the right time to push ahead with testing more privacy solutions, including more advanced advertising blockers, peer-to-peer browsers that decentralize the internet, new encryption techniques, and data unions that let users pool their data and sell it themselves. Others want to treat tech giants more as information fiduciaries, which have a legal responsibility to protect user data.
And for the first time, many privacy experts think internet users will be more willing to put up with a little more inconvenience in return for a lot more privacy.
“This is the first blink of awakening of the world to a danger that’s been present for a long time, which is that we are exposed,” Mr. Searls said. “Cambridge Analytica is old, old news to privacy folks. They’re just the tip of the crapberg.”"
Monday, April 9, 2018
Mark Zuckerberg Can Still Fix This Mess; The New York Times, April 7, 2018
Jonathan Zittrain, The New York Times; Mark Zuckerberg Can Still Fix This Mess
"There are several technical and legal advances that could make a difference.
On the policy front, we should look to how the law treats professionals with specialized skills who get to know clients’ troubles and secrets intimately. For example, doctors and lawyers draw lots of sensitive information from, and wield a lot of power over, their patients and clients. There’s not only an ethical trust relationship there but also a legal one: that of a “fiduciary,” which at its core means that the professionals are obliged to place their clients’ interests ahead of their own.
The legal scholar Jack Balkin has convincingly argued that companies like Facebook and Twitter are in a similar relationship of knowledge about, and power over, their users — and thus should be considered “information fiduciaries.”...
Given the blowback around current privacy and advertising practices — and the threat of regulation, especially from the European Union — companies like Facebook should do the right thing and commit to representing users’ interests. And the law could nudge them in that direction without outright requiring it. These actions might reduce Facebook’s growth or profitability, but that is not a compelling reason to stop doing something harmful. It may be that aspects of an advertising-based business model are indeed incompatible with ethically serving users, as polluted streams are incompatible with ethically mining coal."
"There are several technical and legal advances that could make a difference.
On the policy front, we should look to how the law treats professionals with specialized skills who get to know clients’ troubles and secrets intimately. For example, doctors and lawyers draw lots of sensitive information from, and wield a lot of power over, their patients and clients. There’s not only an ethical trust relationship there but also a legal one: that of a “fiduciary,” which at its core means that the professionals are obliged to place their clients’ interests ahead of their own.
The legal scholar Jack Balkin has convincingly argued that companies like Facebook and Twitter are in a similar relationship of knowledge about, and power over, their users — and thus should be considered “information fiduciaries.”...
Given the blowback around current privacy and advertising practices — and the threat of regulation, especially from the European Union — companies like Facebook should do the right thing and commit to representing users’ interests. And the law could nudge them in that direction without outright requiring it. These actions might reduce Facebook’s growth or profitability, but that is not a compelling reason to stop doing something harmful. It may be that aspects of an advertising-based business model are indeed incompatible with ethically serving users, as polluted streams are incompatible with ethically mining coal."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)