As we watched DOGE attempt to gain access to millions of Americans’ sensitive information, technological privacy is becoming a key point of contention.
They MUST be held accountable for their actions. As it stands now they are not.
AND, to be held accountable they must be brought to the bar. As it stands now they are weaseling and squirming out of it. Our country does not seem able to bring them to justice.
Great discussion. I have read others point out the way Section 230 has turned into platforms trying to have it both ways, but that logical/legal inconsistency needs to be exposed more often (as those platforms scaremonger predicting doom scenarios from any regulation at all). New to me is Solove's neat counter to the false dichotomy between innovation and regulation--pointing out that seat belts are innovative, too. The need for better privacy protections and stricter sanctions for violations has become critical with Musk's baby hackers doing god knows what with our data.
What an important conversation. I'm embarrassed at how little I knew. Thanks to Jen and Professor Solove, I feel as though I have a beginner's grasp of the. big picture. Interesting comparison of regulation of tech to automobiles and food. If ok to regulate autos to steer innovation toward public safety, then ok to regulate tech for the same ends. Makes sense.
Private information should be protected by tech companies, government and others. It is nobody’s business especially the governments’. Some personal information on yourself or your family could also be false and the same for your business as well. So it never hurts to verify personal information. The main thing is that it needs to be protected. I agree with Robert Lastick above.
I liked this! Having worked as a librarian (including law and public libraries) I studied various materials on privacy and the laws of privacy. Daniel gave clear explanations to make me consider a way to think about these issues. And Jen gave a good background and asked the right questions to help us all learn. Thanks!
Bottom line:
They MUST be held accountable for their actions. As it stands now they are not.
AND, to be held accountable they must be brought to the bar. As it stands now they are weaseling and squirming out of it. Our country does not seem able to bring them to justice.
Great discussion. I have read others point out the way Section 230 has turned into platforms trying to have it both ways, but that logical/legal inconsistency needs to be exposed more often (as those platforms scaremonger predicting doom scenarios from any regulation at all). New to me is Solove's neat counter to the false dichotomy between innovation and regulation--pointing out that seat belts are innovative, too. The need for better privacy protections and stricter sanctions for violations has become critical with Musk's baby hackers doing god knows what with our data.
Yes, the innovation/regulation part was great.
What an important conversation. I'm embarrassed at how little I knew. Thanks to Jen and Professor Solove, I feel as though I have a beginner's grasp of the. big picture. Interesting comparison of regulation of tech to automobiles and food. If ok to regulate autos to steer innovation toward public safety, then ok to regulate tech for the same ends. Makes sense.
Private information should be protected by tech companies, government and others. It is nobody’s business especially the governments’. Some personal information on yourself or your family could also be false and the same for your business as well. So it never hurts to verify personal information. The main thing is that it needs to be protected. I agree with Robert Lastick above.
I liked this! Having worked as a librarian (including law and public libraries) I studied various materials on privacy and the laws of privacy. Daniel gave clear explanations to make me consider a way to think about these issues. And Jen gave a good background and asked the right questions to help us all learn. Thanks!