> Note that he's not just handwaving in the magic word "regulation", he has a concrete proposal for six specific, privacy-protecting rules: http://idlewords.com

> Note that he's not just handwaving in the magic word "regulation", he has a concrete proposal for six specific, privacy-protecting rules: http://idlewords.com/talks/what_happens_next_will_amaze_you.htm http://idlewords.com/talks/what_happens_next_will_amaze_you.... Yeah, I’m not so sure that regulations will work all that well. They tend to entrench incumbents and squash innovation. He points to Europe for regulations not working correctly, and I think it’s amazing that Google has greater market share over there than anywhere else. You would hope that European pride and resourcefulness would promote homegrown search engines. Nope, the major alternatives outside the US are protected by totalitarian regimes, and Europe tries to regulate Google, instead. For example, right to download, right to delete, would only work if you are definitely identified. Current tracking is probabilistic, supposedly anonymized. In an ideal world, right to delete would mean no more tracking that you haven’t opted in. In the real world, I expect that right to delete would mean you need to be logged in and tracked even more closely. That’s certainly appealing to the “anti-terror” interests, too. A big difference of computing versus other tech is just the amount of leverage that is possible. Mark Zuckerberg was making a web site to connect classmates, and then it was connecting all the universities, and in no time he’s the #6 richest person according to Forbes. When he started, I don’t think this is how he thought he would end up. He has simply been guided by his morality of creepy openness. The amount of change that we’re capable of creating is beyond our comprehension, and I think it’s unfair to judge our industry by the disaster stories that make it to public consciousness.