Online privacy protection caught in paradox
0 
Editor's Note:
Internet privacy has always been a paradox ever since people first went online. Privacy issues have often put Internet companies under the spotlight. Recently Facebook and Google have been criticized by both legal professionals and lawmakers over their violations of users' privacy, and new laws and regulations are being created to protect online information. But there are still some who argue that too tight controls will hinder the development of Internet technology, and that more openness is needed. How can the balance between innovation and privacy be best sustained? Global Times (GT) reporter Li Yanjie talked with Alessandro Acquisti (Acquisti), associate professor of information technology and public policy at the Heinz College at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), on privacy and the Internet. He is also a member of the CMU Usable Privacy and Security Laboratory, Privacy Technology Center, and Cylab.
|
|
|
Alessandro Acquisti |
GT: It's not the first time that Facebook and Google have generated disputes on Internet privacy. Why do they keep trying to push the limits even they've faced strong criticism in the past? Do you think Facebook's remedial measures are sufficient?
Acquisti: Facebook exposed its users' personal files again, by changing the default settings, while Google has admitted it recorded some personal communications sent over unsecured Wi-Fi data networks in homes and offices in some 30 countries and regions. Google's new social tool, Google Buzz, has been under fire for automatically assigning users a network of "followers" from among people with whom they corresponded most often on Gmail.
Although I do not claim that this process is necessarily intentional, companies like Facebook seem to be pushing the limits of privacy counting on a process of "habituation," or adaptation. We, as users, become so accustomed to privacy invasions that we almost stop paying attention to them. This is of course an undesirable outcome, and I do not feel that Facebook's remedial measures are sufficient.
GT: Why do you think Facebook's remedial measures are insufficient? What should they have done?
Acquisti: I feel that they are not sufficient because plenty of evidence from behavioral decision research shows that simply granting "control" to users does not solve their problems and does not necessarily help them in making better decisions.
There is plenty of research on the paradox of choice showing this, and also my own research on the control paradox and the illusion of control.
A more effective way to protect privacy would be to change default settings so that certain information, even when provided, is by default private unless the user deliberately makes it public.
GT: Will overly tight controls hinder the development of Internet technology?
Acquisti: It's possible. That is, I think that some level of control and protection is important to prevent abuses. But too tight a control could backfire.
For instance, making it illegal to use any type of personal information to personalize services, or making it too burdensome for consumers to express their consent, would hinder the development of Internet applications that could actually be advantageous to consumers.
But from here to saying that we should not exercise any form of protection, it's a long way.
In reality, there exist many PETs (privacy enhancing technologies) that would allow certain data to be protected while other data is disclosed, with shared benefits for data subjects and data holders.
