One of the most annoying things about owning a computer is not having the ability to completely control what is put on that computer. As a lawyer, I understand the argument that everyone “agrees” to allow the programs to download to the computer. However, as a user of computers, I am constantly trying to protect against unknown effects on my computer. Because I’m not stupid, I know that those things are out there and I choose to minimize my exposure as much as possible to those dangerous programs. This was also brought up in class where the amount of exposure you allow yourself to have has a direct influence on how much risk you expose yourself to. I think that if I were not so risk averse, I could have access to much more information and online activities that are out there. The world is at my fingertips, but the threat of crap being put on my computer causes me not to want to do anything.
I found the European model much more intriguing and actually in tune with efficient free markets. A large part of the argument for contracting and free markets is the assumption that both parties know what they enter into. When they have the pop-up of the T&C’s where you just click “Okay” to accept the contract, this is not a very realistic way of receiving consent. In general, I am very protective of people’s rights to the freedom of being able to contract however they wish. However, I think that there should be boundaries set where the owners of the computer are protected from predatory behavior.
I wanted to say one last thing that, in addition to the increase in risk, technology can also increase the magnitude of the consequences. An example is the amount of physical space it takes to hold memory, such as flash drives. One can fit huge amounts of data on things that fit in one’s pocket. This means that a disgruntled employee could walk in with a couple flash drives and download basically an entire company’s sensitive collection of documents.
No comments:
Post a Comment