Shared publicly  - 
In Public Parts, I argued that my German friends had best beware the impact of their institutions' protectionism against the disruption and progress of the internet. 
Kevin Clem's profile photoJeff Jarvis's profile photoTony Carroll's profile photoPierre Lerouge's profile photo
Love your hyperbole. Unfortunately, I agree with it.
I'm French. The way I perceive it, in my country there are two problems:
- Ignorant legislators
- Celebrities of all kinds (actors, politicians, writers, "philosophers") hate the Internet because it gives a voice to everyone, even very stupid people, and are very vocal about it

We've had a few minor successes, but it's difficult to grow when you're feared rather than celebrated.
I'm English, or a Yorkshireman by definition.

Here's the deal: My privacy is mine to give, not yours to take.

Somewhere between the inalienable right to privacy and the unstoppable march of technology, we need a grey zone where we establish responsibilities for person, property, corporate and state... with the state coming last, just a smidgeon after the corporate.

Let's not imagine for a second that the corporate desire for our private data overrides the right to remain private if so wished.

It's up to the corporate bodies with their big brains and billions to work out how to do it.

If representative states stamp their little feet sometimes to remind them who's boss then so be it. The corporations will have to think a bit harder until they work out how to provide a profitable product that respects my privacy, and yours.

I am a firm believer that government censorship of any kind is bad. As the EU becomes more distanced and seperated from the Internet as a whole, they will see both phisical and intellectual progress stagnate.

And yes I am an apple pie eating American. 
+Tony Carroll Your privacy starts in your head: It is always your choice whether you say and share something you're thinking. When you do, even if to one person, it is public to that extent and you lose control of that information to that extent. That has always been true; not a matter of technology. I could go on forever about this; indeed, I wrote a book about it called Public Parts, which endeavors to also have us recognize the benefits of technology so we do not always manage to the worst case, away from change and progress. 
+Jeff Jarvis the extent is the issue. We agree that privacy is ours to give. Maybe we draw the line in a different place on what can happen after it is free. I happen to think that it is still mine, mine, mine, and if I want you to give it back (obvious caveats applied) then you should do so. Lawmakers are there to make sure that you do, regardless of what you think your entitlement is to it - it's still mine, mine, mine.

Intrusion into our privacy isn't a default setting and corporations must learn to play to our tune, not the other way around. If they don't they must be sanctioned. There will be mistakes and it will never be perfect, but I firmly believe that the private person should always trump state or corporate interests, or those of a nosey neighbour.

I enjoyed reading (or rather listening to) Public Parts. Probably a bit more prostate detail than I needed with my cornflakes though. :)

+Kevin Clem the EU is just a malfunctioning political and legislative assembly that is largely derided by Europeans. It isn't a representation of the people who live and work in Europe. All the same, I wouldn't dismiss what happens in Europe so frivolously - the region has been there, seen it, done it, and got the Tshirt over a few thousand years of progress. There is a collective, and dare I say inate, wisdom that comes with that maturity which isn't expressed so readily by the young USA. 
So you think nobody should stand against huge companies like google, facebook or amazon ? 
Or governments are not the one that should ?
I think government are exactly design for that purpose.
They are the people, and they should protect the people , not the companies.
Sayng that it's great to have cheap books, is a proof of short term vision.
Government should temporize technology, because It won't do it itself.
Technology needs to be controlled  Big companies have replaced government for the evil part.
Legislators are not ignorant, they defend old concepts.

In the U.S. you may have the right to buy cheap books, you also have Patriot Act.
To me As French, I think government should put their nose inside the internet, but not as The U.S. or China.
Add a comment...