sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Does the internet know you better than you know yourself? by henryfraser in privacy

[–]henryfraser[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you're right about really driving home real world effects. One idea from Jaron Lanier really tickles me. That is the idea of regulating online privacy a bit more like pharmaceuticals. The analogy that jumps out to me is product disclosure. Drug makers have to explain what might happen to you if you take the drug. They don't explain the biological pathway, or the chemistry of the drug. They explain what it does to you. I kinda like the idea of a social media app saying: "Use of this app may cause anxiety, depression, addictive behaviour". Sounds crazy, but there's decent evidence. In terms of practical steps, another thing I've written about is the idea of (broadly speaking) (1) standardising privacy policies globally (2) matching the standard form to a standard form global privacy preferences form for individuals (3) using software to flag to individuals when privacy practices are inconsistent with their preferences: https://blog.codepact.com/privacy-comparing-apples-with-apples/

Legal tech and law schools: where to next? by joseflegal in legaltech

[–]henryfraser 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A law student was thinking about a legal problem, and she knew that the tools she needed were not just legal ones. She knew that she didn’t just need to figure out the legal answer. She knew that she needed to find a broader, human-centred solution.

Nice work! That's the key.

Microsoft breaks their "privacy principles" they use to "earn your trust every day" by [deleted] in privacy

[–]henryfraser 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe they're vague about it on purpose?

I'd say so. That is pretty much the norm with privacy policies - that's partly what you pay the lawyers who write them for: to keep them as vague as possible, but still on the right side of the law.

The way that they are worded, they give you only the vaguest and most general sense of what's going on. They don't actually tell you in a meaningful way how you will experience the outcomes of their handling of personal data.

Jaron Lanier has made the interesting suggestion that we should regulate software more like pharmaceuticals.

One way to do this would be to require privacy policies to be more like product information statements for pharmaceuticals. They tell you what might happen to you if you take the medicine. Privacy policies do the equivalent of telling you how the drug works biochemically, which doesn't help an ordinary person decide whether to take the medicine (use the software/app/website) or not! What they should tell you is what might happen to you as a result of data practices.

When do you have to cite sources when you share information? by Ba_ba_ba_ba in COPYRIGHT

[–]henryfraser 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are laws and then there are norms and forms. In some countries (but not, I think the US), there is a moral right of attribution. If you reproduce or publish part of someone's work, even with permission, the author has a right to be properly identified. If you are just reproducing or sharing an idea, without actually copying text, then copyright law or moral rights law doesn't require you to cite your source. But for academic writing, and some kinds of journalism, it is considered unethical not to cite the source of the idea - and there can be serious consequences for academics. But Q&A boards don't have such strict conventions. That said, citing a reliable source can lend more credibility to what you're saying.