Omri Ben-Shahar

[Commentary] Internet companies collect abundant information about people’s online activity. They use this information to determine people’s interests and shopping profiles, and then make money by selling personalized “behavioral” ads. The Federal Communications Commission is not too happy about this barter in people’s information.

It cannot regulate the likes of Google and Facebook (they are not communications companies), but it is proposing new rules that would apply to companies that come under its purview – Internet providers like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T. One of the proposed regulations is entirely unobjectionable but also entirely useless. It would require better disclosure to consumers: the FCC wants every Internet company to clearly explain to people what information it collects and sells.

Disclosure is a great idea, but it has a fatal flaw. It doesn’t work. Do you know anyone who ever reads the fine print? Recognizing, perhaps, that disclosure is unlikely to budge the data collection meter, the FCC is setting its sights on more ambitious regulation. It wants to shut down a budding new market in which people pay for more privacy. Privacy, the FCC thinks, should not be for sale. There is something that rings hollow and paternalistic in the privacy-is-not-only-for-the-rich battle cry. Of all the things that wealthy people can buy, privacy and freedom from tailored ads are low on the wish list of low-income folks.

[Omri Ben-Shahar is Kearney Director of the Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School]

[Commentary] “Smart” devices are spying on us. GoogleMaps tracks our location, smart home lights figure out our vacation, PillDrill knows our medication, and Fitbit records our dedication. Siri or Alexa, needless to say, report every breath we take. The technological rise of data-driven devices is universally embraced by consumers. Machines that used to provide simple static functionality now perform data-intensive advisory roles. These “smart” machines transmit through the “Internet of things” information on how they are being used, and are fed back with alerts prompting consumers to improve usage, save money, and—truth be told—buy more products. There are smart cars, coffeemakers, refrigerators, alarms, baby monitors, watches, wallets, t-shirts, racquets, Barbie dolls and of course phones.

For some observers, however, these machines are threatening social order. In the emerging fraternity of “privacy alarmists,” “smart” is code name for surveillance. Smart devices are spies who infiltrated our intimate spaces, watching us, eavesdropping our conversations, and reporting back to their corporate headquarters. This information is then stored forever and used to prescribe the way we live. It is also used to enrich the creators of these gadgets. Privacy alarmists view the dissemination of smart devices and the resulting collection of private information as a plot to deny citizens their autonomy and control. Yes, smart devices transmit information to computers that emit pre-programmed feedback in response. But no, there is no “they” there, no eyes watching us, no surveillance or monitoring–there is no Manchuria. Individuals are not targeted, wiretapped, spied on, or exposed. Instead, databases about populations are assembled, statistical patterns are detected, and greatly beneficial personalized services are offered by automata.

[Omri Ben-Shahar is a law professor and Kearney Director of the Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School]