Privacy law expert warns of the perils of social reading

May 8, 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: Facebook users' app use contradicts their stated security concerns, study finds

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

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Sydney makes its mark with electronic paper traffic signs

July 28, 2015

Visionect, which is in the business of helping companies build electronic paper display products, announced that Sydney has launched e-paper traffic signs. The traffic signage integrates displays from US manufacturer E Ink ...

2 comments

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.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.