share. Com-panies like Airbnb encourage home swapping, and Zilok enables rentals between individuals for everything from power tools to game consoles. Sharing and rating provide a robust platform for accountability and reputation models to emerge, buoyed by the advent of the Web.
As the Economist notes in “The Rise of the Sharing Economy,”“Before the Internet, renting a surfboard, a power tool, or a parking space from someone else was feasible, but was usually more trouble than it was worth. Now websites such as Airbnb, RelayRides, and SnapGoods match up owners and renters; smartphones with GPS let people see where the nearest rentable car is parked; social networks provide a way to check up on people and build trust; and online payment systems handle the billing.” 10
If personal data can remain protected in these systems of open innovation, the sharing economy is a powerful move toward fulfillment in the Connected World and a positive example of how accountability-based influence can foster community versus self-focused gain.
3
PERSONAL IDENTITY MANAGEMENT
I’m excited about where technology will take us. My biggest goal is to make sure that our privacy laws keep up with our technology. I want to make sure that all of the benefits that we see from new technology don’t come at the expense of our privacy and personal freedom. 1
SENATOR AL FRANKEN
S ENATOR A L F RANKEN is chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, a bipartisan part of the larger Senate Judiciary Committee. It’s a complex job to encourage growth of technology while honoring the nuance of consumer privacy. From the technology side, it’s easy to dwell on how privacy advocates may hinder innovation and growth. From the privacy side, a loss of trust from previous violations combined with a lack of understanding about technology slows adoption.
Both sides have merit and need to be heard. But the issues need some context:
People’s right to privacy is different from a person’s preference about privacy.
Just because a certain technology can be built doesn’t mean it should be.
Let’s unpack these ideas a bit.
Privacy is tough to both define and measure. Depending on the context, the activity that’s fine for one person may not be condoned for another. For instance, as a rule, most adults don’t have a problem with the idea that websites collecting information from children under the age of thirteen should comply with the Federal Trade Commission’s Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which requires verifiable parental consent for PII, or Personally Identifiable Information to be collected about children. Gathering this PII for younger kids outside of the parameters of parental consent is typically seen as creepy or worse. COPPA also covers ideas of how cookies or other tracking mechanisms should or shouldn’t be utilized to collect behavioral data on kids.
But manipulating online systems of age recognition can be easier than you think, especially when parents help kids under the age of thirteen get onto sites. As the Huffington Post reported in their article “Under 13 Year Olds on Facebook: Why Do 5 Million Kids Log In if Facebook Doesn’t Want Them To?” a Consumer Reports study conducted in June 2012 revealed that “an estimated 5.6 million Facebook clients—about 3.5 percent of its U.S. users—are children who the company says are banned from the site.” 2 Surprisingly, many of the kids creating accounts are also getting help from their parents, according to the study.
Here’s where things get tricky: If a site can’t collect PII data about a user, it’s very hard to identify their age. And Facebook does regularly eliminate the younger users it identifies. The article also notes that Facebook could lose upwards of 3.5 percent of its U.S. market, however, if it were more vigilant at keeping kids off the site.
In light of this article, I’d like to restate my second
As the Economist notes in “The Rise of the Sharing Economy,”“Before the Internet, renting a surfboard, a power tool, or a parking space from someone else was feasible, but was usually more trouble than it was worth. Now websites such as Airbnb, RelayRides, and SnapGoods match up owners and renters; smartphones with GPS let people see where the nearest rentable car is parked; social networks provide a way to check up on people and build trust; and online payment systems handle the billing.” 10
If personal data can remain protected in these systems of open innovation, the sharing economy is a powerful move toward fulfillment in the Connected World and a positive example of how accountability-based influence can foster community versus self-focused gain.
3
PERSONAL IDENTITY MANAGEMENT
I’m excited about where technology will take us. My biggest goal is to make sure that our privacy laws keep up with our technology. I want to make sure that all of the benefits that we see from new technology don’t come at the expense of our privacy and personal freedom. 1
SENATOR AL FRANKEN
S ENATOR A L F RANKEN is chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, a bipartisan part of the larger Senate Judiciary Committee. It’s a complex job to encourage growth of technology while honoring the nuance of consumer privacy. From the technology side, it’s easy to dwell on how privacy advocates may hinder innovation and growth. From the privacy side, a loss of trust from previous violations combined with a lack of understanding about technology slows adoption.
Both sides have merit and need to be heard. But the issues need some context:
People’s right to privacy is different from a person’s preference about privacy.
Just because a certain technology can be built doesn’t mean it should be.
Let’s unpack these ideas a bit.
Privacy is tough to both define and measure. Depending on the context, the activity that’s fine for one person may not be condoned for another. For instance, as a rule, most adults don’t have a problem with the idea that websites collecting information from children under the age of thirteen should comply with the Federal Trade Commission’s Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which requires verifiable parental consent for PII, or Personally Identifiable Information to be collected about children. Gathering this PII for younger kids outside of the parameters of parental consent is typically seen as creepy or worse. COPPA also covers ideas of how cookies or other tracking mechanisms should or shouldn’t be utilized to collect behavioral data on kids.
But manipulating online systems of age recognition can be easier than you think, especially when parents help kids under the age of thirteen get onto sites. As the Huffington Post reported in their article “Under 13 Year Olds on Facebook: Why Do 5 Million Kids Log In if Facebook Doesn’t Want Them To?” a Consumer Reports study conducted in June 2012 revealed that “an estimated 5.6 million Facebook clients—about 3.5 percent of its U.S. users—are children who the company says are banned from the site.” 2 Surprisingly, many of the kids creating accounts are also getting help from their parents, according to the study.
Here’s where things get tricky: If a site can’t collect PII data about a user, it’s very hard to identify their age. And Facebook does regularly eliminate the younger users it identifies. The article also notes that Facebook could lose upwards of 3.5 percent of its U.S. market, however, if it were more vigilant at keeping kids off the site.
In light of this article, I’d like to restate my second
Similar Books
