NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: NYTimes on U.S. vs. Europe on Privacy and Google (and fragility)
|
Understanding
the economic implications of the two approaches cited in the column is
very important. While I want to be careful about simplistic readings I’ve
long argued that the US First Amendment has played an important role in driving
our economy by enabling new ideas to be heard. It also reminds me of the
difference between promising Egalite (Equality) and Opportunity as framings and
the implications The
NYT story does point out how easily the privacy laws can be abused and used
cynically. We’ve also seen stories about how British liability laws have
been used to suppress and intimidate. It seems strange to use the governmental Stasi
as an example for protecting privacy from companies when the British government
places cameras everywhere. The
value of the information made available via search engines has demonstrated the
value of a world in which information tends to be made available. One way to interpret
David Landes’ The Wealth and Poverty of Nations is that
countries which can tolerate disruption do far better than those suppress it.
As Spain tries to become more like the rest of Europe is Europe in danger of
being like the Spain of the last 500 years? Perhaps the US has been fortunate to
be able to absorb disruption and today’s politics might be a sign of the
limits on our ability to do so. Let’s
not forget another form of opportunity – the presumption of innocence. The
different approaches have consequences and it’s not an accident that
Google and other companies are US creations. To
respond to (I argue closely related) “fragile” post.
This also goes to the question of whether the US can fail fast . Perhaps but
this is where the opportunity paradigm and the first amendment comes to the
fore. It’s a “deal with it” model, sort of like the Internet
and best efforts. It’s harder to fail than a model which depends on prior
restraint. What struck me most in Ferguson’s fascinating “The
Ascent of Money” (the TV series – is the book much different?) is
the degree to which it’s about hindsight. For each of the high risk bets,
especially in the case of hedge funds, somehow the people talked about and
interviewed are the winners. That’s a major distortion – it should be
about finding value in the happenstance rather than having to depend on wisdom
about the unknowable future. What
worries me more are the slow boil effects such as climate change. A bit off
from the First Amendment topic is the issue of overly coupled systems but that is
another story ... -----Original Message----- NYTimes on U.S. vs. Europe on Privacy and Google http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/weekinreview/28liptak.html
(New York Times) --Lauren-- NNSquad Moderator |