Privacy law expert warns of the perils of social reading

May 08, 2012
Privacy law expert warns of the perils of social reading
Richards

The Internet and social media have opened up new vistas for people to share preferences in films, books and music. Services such as Spotify and the Washington Post Social Reader already integrate reading and listening into social networks, providing what Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg calls “frictionless sharing.”

“But there’s a problem. A world of automatic, always-on disclosure should give us pause,” says Neil M. Richards, JD, law expert and professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis.

“’Frictionless sharing’ isn’t really frictionless – it forces on us the new frictions of worrying who knows what we’re reading and what our privacy settings are wherever and however we electronically. It’s also not really sharing – real sharing is conscious sharing, a recommendation to read or not to read something rather than a data exhaust pipe of mental activity.

“Rather than ‘over-sharing,’ we should share better, which means consciously, and we should expand the limited legal protections for intellectual privacy rather than dismantling them.”

Richards says that what’s at stake is “intellectual privacy,” his term for the idea that records of our reading and movie watching deserve special protection compared to other kinds of personal information.

“The films we watch, the books we read, and the websites we visit are essential to the ways we try to understand the world we live in,” he says.”

“Intellectual privacy protects our ability to think for ourselves, without worrying that other people might judge us based on what we read. It allows us to explore ideas that other people might not approve of, and to figure out our politics, sexuality and personal values, among other things.

“Sharing and commenting on books, and ideas is the essence of free speech.”

Richards notes that the work of the American Libraries Association and its Office of Intellectual Freedom (OIF) offers an attractive solution to the problem of reader records.

“The OIF has argued passionately and correctly for the importance of solitary reading as well as the ethical need for those who enable reading – librarians, but also Internet companies – to protect the privacy and confidentiality of reading records,” he says.

“The norms of librarians suggest one successful and proven solution — professionals and companies holding reader records must only disclose them with the express conscious consent of the reader.

“The stakes in this debate are immense. Choices we make now about the boundaries between our individual and social selves, between consumers and companies, between citizens and the state, will have massive consequences for the societies our children and grandchildren inherit.”

Explore further: Vatican's manuscripts digital archive now available online

More information: Read more of Richards comments on intellectual privacy on the OIF Blog- www.oif.ala.org/oif/?p=3720

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

The first step to change: Focusing on the negative

Nov 11, 2011

If you want people to change the current system, or status quo, first you have to get them to notice what’s wrong with it. That’s the idea behind a new study to be published in Psychological Science, a journal of the ...

Is there a hidden bias against creativity?

Nov 18, 2011

CEOs, teachers, and leaders claim they want creative ideas to solve problems. But creative ideas are rejected all the time. A new study, which will be published in an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the ...

Recommended for you

Kickstarter suspends privacy router campaign

16 hours ago

Kickstarter has suspended an anonymizing router from its crowdfunding site. By Sunday, the page for "anonabox: A Tor hardware router" carried an extra word "(Suspended)" in parentheses with a banner below ...

Facebook unfriends federal drug agency

Oct 17, 2014

(AP)—Facebook wants assurances from the Drug Enforcement Administration that it's not operating any more fake profile pages as part of ongoing investigations.

User comments : 2

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Squirrel
not rated yet May 08, 2012
So we go to concerts, theaters, cinemas with bags over our heads least anyone recognize that we are listening or looking at this particular concert, play, or film rather than another. We do not care about that particular privacy--why make reading different. We are social not asocial animals.

I do not think a person has much capacity to think for themselves if they "worrying that other people might judge us based on what we read".

This is over the top language: "immense", "massive consequences" --bullshit.
CHollman82
3 / 5 (2) May 08, 2012
Squirrel is not thinking... what if a teenager who is raised in a family of creationists reads a book about evolution and then gets punished for that when their parents find out about it through this "sharing" nonsense?

Privacy is required when there exists the possibility of persecution based on bigotry.