TFP BLOG: Is There A Privacy Expert In The House

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Is There A Privacy Expert In The House

I recently attended an online privacy debate/discussion presented by Gotham Media at Frankfurt Kurnit. I want to thank both of them for putting this type of program together: a mix of legal and non-legal and very cutting edge. Unfortunately, I left unsatisfied.

Each panel member was smart and specialized (government lawyer, Wired editor, journalism professor and ex-Microsoft lawyer) and the conversation was lively for the most part. But, the panelists appeared to generally agree that (1) people want more privacy, (2) consumers need to be protected online (from advertisers? others, besides crooks? not sure who), and (3) the government is the entity that should police privacy.

I left the talk unsatisfied because I don't agree with any of those premises. (1) my public online presence is something I chose and am happy with, (2) I much prefer to get ads targeted to what I am looking for, especially if it includes a better price--I don't like to window shop, and (3) the discussion centered around privacy regulations that remain on the drafting boards since 2000. Social media and sharing sites (facebook, twitter, foursquare, flickr etc) were, of course, not even around in 2000. Which begs the question, who is writing the regs and do they have enough of an online presence to understand social media?

I prefer to be vigilant (not necessarily restrictive) about my own settings, so I can benefit from sharing and what is shared on my terms.

I am not a privacy lawyer, it is just an area of interest to me. If anyone can set my understanding straight, please comment, I would be grateful to hear why I am misinformed.

No comments:

Post a Comment

NYCLA DRAFT DEFINITION OF PROFESSIONALISM

By professionalism we mean a group pursuing a learned art as a higher calling in a spirit that it is performing a public service, a service that is indispensible in a democratic nation founded on the rule of law. This calling is no less a public service because it may also be a means of livelihood. Pursuit of a learned art in the spirit of a public service is the essence of being a lawyer. It implies obligations of dignity, integrity, self-respect and respect for others.

The essence of professionalism is a commitment to develop one's skills to the fullest and to apply them responsibly and with the utmost diligence to the problem at hand. Professionalism requires adherence to the highest standards of integrity and a willingness to subordinate narrow self-interest in pursuit of the more fundamental goal of client service. Because of the tremendous power they wield in our system, lawyers must never forget that their duty to serve their clients fairly and skillfully takes priority over the personal accumulation of wealth. Lawyers must be willing and prepared to undertake zealous advocacy on behalf of their clients while retaining enough perspective to provide those clients with considered, well-informed and objective advice.

Although duties to their clients in particular matters are paramount, lawyers must throughout their careers remain conscious of and committed to the goal of improving the profession and the system of justice. This commitment includes taking personal and professional measures to increase the availability of legal services and abet even-handed and efficient application and administration of the legal system for all segments of society.