I’ve turned a recent presentation at an AI Ethics conference into an article that suggests our current approach to privacy rights relies on a flawed, property-based model. From lessons learned while teaching privacy workshops to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals framework, this presentation covered a lot of ground.
Two Canadian privacy commissioners have found Facebook in violation of privacy laws. Facebook thinks this is fine.
Not only are Canadian political parties not subject to privacy laws, but they are also not immune to the appeal of cutting-edge digital tools for data-driven marketing and persuasion. It’s a bad mix.
On the constructive use of bullshit to bypass important conversations about data collection and data privacy.
Shaw may be pointing an accusatory finger at the Big Boy Table dominated by Bell, Telus, and Rogers…. but they’re only pointing from a short distance away, at the next table over
“From what I’ve learned,” Zuckerberg writes, “I believe we need new regulation in four areas: harmful content, election integrity, privacy and data portability.”
He’s right, but don’t let him “help.”
Reports say we care a lot about our personal data privacy but do almost nothing about it. This was described as a paradox… but is it?
I don’t think so.
Two interviews have hit my ears in the past few days, and I highly recommend them both: Nilay Patel interviews Shoshana Zuboff on Vergecast,and Sam Harris interviews Roger McNamee on the Making Sense podcast.
We already exist in a sphere where fear of copyright infringement leads to inhibition of content creation—so-called “copyright chill”—and regulations like these, even though they only mandate laws for EU countries, will make this chill worse.