• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Assistant Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
  • IPilogue
    Projects
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

Privacy is too much work

December 17, 2009 by Billy Barnes (IPilogue Editor)

Billy Barnes is a JD candidate at the University of Toronto.

If information falls on the tenth page of Google results and nobody reads past page three, does it make a sound? Orin Kerr recently posted a suggestion for increasing your privacy online: change your name to one that already gets lots of results. Odds are good that you won’t be the most famous George Washington who ever lived. Professor Kerr’s suggestion is a joke, but it hints at the truth. Privacy is too much work.

This article began as a call to make a New Year’s resolution to manage your privacy but as I researched, I found that almost every suggestion for privacy protection was impractical or unhelpfully vague. For just one example, the website for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner recommends that we read all of our email offline. I can’t imagine that working. Is privacy worth all the effort?

It is surprisingly hard to pin down precisely why some of us are uncomfortable with companies knowing intimate details about our lives. We know that none of the companies that are collecting information about us are going to judge us in any way based on what they know. They really don’t care except insofar as it allows them to provide better services or more targeted advertising. The only time the threat become credible is when information is provided to somebody who knows you. But I have never heard of an employer refusing to hire someone or a person being ridiculed based on information from a credit card company. Instead, what normally injures people is information they post online themselves or that their friends post about them.

There are two separate ecosystems of personal information. The first is the intimate usage data being automatically collected by just about every company you interact with online or off. This is the common subject of intellectual property blog posts, laws and privacy policies. It’s the least likely to cause real harm to the average person and the hardest to guard against. The second is the content published by individuals and their friends. This includes blogs and social networks. When people talk about privacy, they tend to speak as if these two ecosystems are somehow related, but they aren’t. They affect users in different ways and must be managed differently. The first, usage data and the market for personal information, is the proper domain of the law. I believe that for the majority of users, this type of privacy is simply not worth the effort. Rather, users should focus their energy on the more accessible problem of what they publish themselves.

In the New Year, then, don’t stress about what Google knows about you (unless that’s your job) and take a few minutes to look over the new privacy settings in Facebook.

Posted in Internet, Privacy

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« Google’s new pet project: “Living Stories” | Location can eat away at the rights of an existing trade-mark »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Events Calendar
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

 

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • bob on Bill C-32: Copyright and Education in the Digital Age
  • Stuart Freen on Sizing Privacy Harm
  • Steven Bercu on First sale and digital content
  • Anonymous on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Stuart Freen on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Anonymous on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Christian Rock on ‘Operation In Our Sites’
  • Anonymous on Does Fashion Need Copyright Protection?
  • Fly Intheointment on ‘Operation In Our Sites’
  • Bart on Copyright Termination: How Authors can Reclaim their Copyrights
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • CRTC Seizes Internet Regulation Mantle
  • Brand Expectations in the Restroom: 4th Circuit Applies Contributory Trademark Infringement Doctrine to Post-Purchase Confusion Case
  • Yes, Patents Do Have Gender
  • Fashion IP Revisited: The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act
  • RIM’s Battle for Information Privacy, Market Share, and its Reputation
  • Transnational Regulation: Rough Consensus and Running Code
  • IP Osgoode: Call for Editors (2010-2011)
  • Sizing Privacy Harm
  • The Internet Age: The Culprit for a Rise in Plagiarism?
  • USPTO Issues Post-Bilski Guidelines for Patent Examiners
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • June 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • Commercialization (46)
  • Contracts (36)
  • copyright reform (65)
  • defamation (6)
  • events (36)
  • General (120)
  • Innovation (79)
  • Internet (122)
  • IP (650)
    • Copyright (308)
      • CD Levy (6)
      • Digital Downloads (39)
      • Digital Locks (12)
      • Fair Dealing (25)
      • Infringement (60)
      • Internet Sharing (50)
      • Literary Works (24)
      • Movies (24)
      • Music Industry (42)
      • Originality (17)
      • Ownership (45)
        • Licensees (12)
      • Subsidiary Rights (4)
    • Patents (198)
      • Cross Border Issues (34)
      • Electronic Processes (7)
      • Infringement (37)
      • Patent Trolls (10)
      • Patentability (59)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (46)
    • Trademarks (130)
      • Domain Names (26)
      • Famous Marks (9)
      • Official Marks (8)
      • Parallel Importation (3)
      • Personality Rights (8)
  • IP Course Topic (11)
  • Links (3)
  • Music Industry (39)
  • Open-Source (14)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (3)
  • Privacy (111)
    • Electronic Databases (23)
    • Human Rights Issues (19)
    • Identity Theft (6)
  • Regulatory Policy (2)
  • Tech Transfer (12)
  • Technology (119)
  • Telecommunications (30)
  • Uncategorized (70)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us  

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736