IPcentral Weblog
  The DACA Blog

Saturday, November 28, 2009

The "Problem of Proportionality" in Debates about Online Privacy and Child Safety
(previous | next)

The Internet is massive. That's the 'no-duh' statement of the year, right? But seriously, the sheer volume of transactions (both economic and non-economic) is simply staggering. Consider a few factoids to give you a flavor of just how much is going on out there:

  • In 2006, Internet users in the United States viewed an average of 120.5 Web pages each day.

  • There are over 1.4 million new blog posts every day.

  • Social networking giant Facebook reports that each month, its over 300 million users upload more than 2 billion photos, 14 million videos, and create over 3 million events. More than 2 billion pieces of content (web links, news stories, blog posts, notes, photos, etc.) are shared each week. There are also roughly 45 million active user groups on the site.

  • YouTube reports that 20 hours of video are uploaded to the site every minute.

  • Amazon reported that on December 15, 2008, 6.3 million items were ordered worldwide, a rate of 72.9 items per second.

  • Every six weeks, there are 10 million edits made to Wikipedia.

Now, let's think about how some of our lawmakers and media personalities talk about the Internet. If we were to judge the Internet based upon the daily headlines in various media outlets or from the titles of various Congressional or regulatory agency hearings, then we'd be led to believe that the Internet is a scary, dangerous place. That 's especially the case when it comes to concerns about online privacy and child safety. Everywhere you turn there's a bogeyman story about the supposed dangers of cyberspace.

But let's go back to the numbers. While I certainly understand the concerns many folks have about their personal privacy or their child's safety online, the fact is the vast majority of online transactions that take place online each and every second of the day are of an entirely harmless, even socially beneficial nature. I refer to this disconnect as the "problem of proportionality" in debates about online safety and privacy. People are not just making mountains out of molehills, in many cases they are just making the molehills up or blowing them massively out of proportion.

Go back to those Facebook numbers, for example. 300 million users uploading 2 billion pieces of content each week, plus 45 million user groups. Now, how many "incidents" do you hear about in the course of an entire year involving privacy and child safety on Facebook? A couple? A dozen? I doubt it's that many, but for the sake of argument, let's be preposterous and say the number of incidents is 10,000. Doing some quick math: 10,000 "incidents" divided by 2 billion pieces of content shared each week = 0.001% In other words, there would need to be hundreds of thousands of privacy or child safety "incidents" taking place on Facebook each week before one could legitimately claim the trend was statistically significant in proportion to the total volume of transactions.

Of course, there's no way to be scientific about this since I can't crunch the numbers to get an exact calculation for Facebook or the entire Internet since it's hard to even define or collect info about online "incidents." And this is not to say there are never any incidents online where some harm might come to an individual or a child. Defining "harm" can be contentious, however, especially when it comes to what I regard as the conjectural theories about advertising or provocative media content "harming" us or our kids.

Of course, others could claim that the sheer volume of information that we put online about ourselves is problematic for a variety of other reasons. The best argument about potential harm coming of all this information being online is that the sheer volume of data sharing and collection opens up the door to identify theft, or that some government agencies could get their hands on it and use it to do nasty stuff to us. That first problem can be a legitimate one, and deserves more attention and greater consumer education. But that latter problem should be addressed by putting more constraints on our government(s), not by imposing more regulations on the Internet. Government powers should be tightly limited when it comes to monitoring the habits of websurfers or collecting information about them.

Nonetheless, it is my contention that an infinitesimal percentage of all daily online transactions and interactions involve serious privacy violations or harm to children. Until they can prove otherwise, we need to demand that our policymakers and folks in the press put these issues into some perspective before they jump to conclusion about online life. Enough of the fear-mongering and techno-panics!

posted by Adam Thierer @ 1:45 PM | Free Speech , Generic Rant , Online Safety & Parental Controls , Privacy

Share |

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(4)


Every time someone loads a web page with behavioral or tracked ads, privacy is violated. Very few people have an inkling what is happening behind the scenes, fewer still know how to manage their interactions to minimize privacy intrusions. The market has failed in this case because there is an overwhelming imbalance of knowledge and power between individuals and the corporations who are surveilling them.

Posted by: Logical Extremes at November 29, 2009 1:22 PM

It's hard to argue with facts and figures. And I agree that the the vast majority of web interactions are harmless. Unfortunately the harmful interactions in this case violate one of our most fundamental concepts, protecting children.

Many will argue that it does not matter what the percentage is, that even one child harmed is too much. This is also a reasonable position.

The key to solving any problem though is thoughtful and rational discussion. You've made your case well. I'd like to hear from someone on the other side of the argument to hear an equally thoughtful position.

Posted by: Anonymous Proxy at November 29, 2009 7:18 PM

If you're going to argue about proportionality, I think you should scale your data correctly. Comparing incidents of cyber-crime to number of photos uploaded seems incorrect. Cyber-crime is more than a single transaction, it's generally the behavior of a user over period of time. So probably you should compare total unique users on FB to number of crime events for a better percentage. Still a small number but nearly as small..

Posted by: Science at December 4, 2009 10:30 AM

The survey reports that about half (52 percent) of Americans believe the threat Iran poses to the U.S. can be contained with diplomacy, while 22 percent think it is a threat that requires military action, a percentage that has grown slightly (from 15 percent) in the past year. Seventeen percent do not think Iran is a threat at this time, which is on par with where it was last year.

Posted by: Air Jordan 19 at July 8, 2014 4:38 AM

Post a Comment:

Blog Main
RSS Feed  
Recent Posts
  EFF-PFF Amicus Brief in Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court Videogame Violence Case
New OECD Study Finds That Improved IPR Protections Benefit Developing Countries
Hubris, Cowardice, File-sharing, and TechDirt
iPhones, DRM, and Doom-Mongers
"Rogue Archivist" Carl Malamud On How to Fix Gov2.0
Coping with Information Overload: Thoughts on Hamlet's BlackBerry by William Powers
How Many Times Has Michael "Dr. Doom" Copps Forecast an Internet Apocalypse?
Google / Verizon Proposal May Be Important Compromise, But Regulatory Trajectory Concerns Many
Two Schools of Internet Pessimism
GAO: Wireless Prices Plummeting; Public Knowledge: We Must Regulate!
Archives by Month
  September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
  - (see all)
Archives by Topic
  - A La Carte
- Add category
- Advertising & Marketing
- Antitrust & Competition Policy
- Appleplectics
- Books & Book Reviews
- Broadband
- Cable
- Campaign Finance Law
- Capitalism
- Capitol Hill
- China
- Commons
- Communications
- Copyright
- Cutting the Video Cord
- Cyber-Security
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- Digital TV
- E-commerce
- e-Government & Transparency
- Economics
- Education
- Electricity
- Energy
- Events
- Exaflood
- Free Speech
- Gambling
- General
- Generic Rant
- Global Innovation
- Googlephobia
- Googlephobia
- Human Capital
- Innovation
- Intermediary Deputization & Section 230
- Internet
- Internet Governance
- Internet TV
- Interoperability
- IP
- Local Franchising
- Mass Media
- Media Regulation
- Monetary Policy
- Municipal Ownership
- Net Neutrality
- Neutrality
- Non-PFF Podcasts
- Ongoing Series
- Online Safety & Parental Controls
- Open Source
- PFF Podcasts
- Philosophy / Cyber-Libertarianism
- Privacy
- Privacy Solutions
- Regulation
- Search
- Security
- Software
- Space
- Spectrum
- Sports
- State Policy
- Supreme Court
- Taxes
- The FCC
- The FTC
- The News Frontier
- Think Tanks
- Trade
- Trademark
- Universal Service
- Video Games & Virtual Worlds
- VoIP
- What We're Reading
- Wireless
- Wireline
Archives by Author
PFF Blogosphere Archives
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.

The Progress & Freedom Foundation