As Google acts, the question is: have we lost our privacy to the internet? Dear Tom The rise of the internet, from obscurity to ubiquity in the course of a few decades, has had profound effects on our society and on us as individuals. No one could have predicted how significant it would become, and no one can predict with any certainty how it will develop. This is true of the underlying technologies, but it is equally and, arguably more importantly, true of the changes that the internet has on how we communicate and interact with each other. It has brought us an overwhelming range of benefits, providing a universal tool to communicate, to organise our lives and to access entertainment. What concerns me most is that this tool brings with it risks that we simply haven't grasped. Social networks encourage us to share every aspect of our lives with our friends, but, by providing that service, those networks see everything that we share, and use that information to categorise, profile and predict us. These services aren't "free" - we pay for them with our personal data, and the profits are huge. It could be argued, and often is by the heads of large technology companies, that privacy is dead and that the benefits of social networks and similar services easily outweigh the perceived loss of privacy. I would argue that we do not yet fully understand the power of the data we have shared, and that by unwittingly giving this information to Google, Facebook and others we are shaping the future of our society in ways we cannot predict. For the entirety of human history, we have operated on small scales and in relative anonymity. Our words are heard by the few people close to us and most are quickly forgotten. We walk down the street without passers-by knowing our names or history. The internet has started to change that. Our words and actions can easily be shared with billions of people around the globe and archived indefinitely. The details of our lives can be found simply by typing our name into Google. We need to understand the risks of this type of technology so that we can fully gain its benefits. We need protections, both technical and legal, so that a small mistake cannot devastate our lives. We also need education to help us function in a world where privacy is no longer the natural state of being. Dear Joss I think you've hit the nail on the head when you write that, by sharing data, we are shaping the future of our society in ways that cannot be predicted. How, then, can we mitigate against the worst consequences of trends we can scarcely envisage? If recent economic history suggests anything, it's that humans are poor at risk assessment. Can we hope to comprehend these risks until at least some of us have experienced them in their worst form? Quite possibly not - not least because of the intuition- defying divide between the daily delights of social networking and its potential repercussions in the form of snooping, stalking, identity theft, state surveillance and much else besides. While it's difficult to disagree with your call for education and effective protections, I find myself worrying about another set of unintended consequences behind this warning: that we risk polarising a vital debate into paralysis, rather than facing up to the knotty human issues feeding it. I'm not sure how helpful it is, for example, to lump the perspectives of most large technology companies together under the banner "privacy is dead." Clearly, there's a lot of money being made today - and much of it with breathtaking cynicism - by extracting as much personal information as possible from the eager and the unwitting, as well as from the eager and well-informed. Facebook's initial public offering is barely the beginning and it will be both alarming and fascinating to see how its heft continues to grow. It's also increasingly clear, however, that granting and respecting privacy of various kinds is becoming a vital part of most business strategies reliant on users' goodwill, attention and effort - for all its faults, Google placed particular emphasis on this in creating Google+ - and that many of the most worrying trends taking place across the digital world are born more from corporate ignorance than malice. This doesn't excuse ignorance or cynicism. But I do worry that much of the "us" and "them" attitude directed towards tech companies may be hitting the wrong targets, and that privacy itself risks becoming a bugbear rather than a rallying call. Those perpetrating both present and potential crimes and abuses - whether they're members of a corporation, the criminal underworld, or a national government - must be stopped, and the techniques they deploy identified and disabled. But the "we" who are truly in this together encompasses most of the companies it's tempting to vilify and the elected officials it's easy to pillory as ignorant. Without them, there will be no such thing as real progress. The balance between privacy and innovation is crucial to this debate and I wouldn't want to suggest we treat privacy as anything more than one among several fundamental human rights. As you've noted, the pleasures of social networking are real and tangible whereas the privacy risks tend to seem far away. From a corporate perspective the profits are equally real, and the risks of privacy violations remain as far away. I think that this is why we are seeing, for example with Google's Street View as well as its recent privacy policy changes, a tactic of asking forgiveness rather than permission. I very much agree that treating companies, and indeed our governments, as closed entities that we must fight every inch of the way is not productive. It is certainly worth praising Google for the wide promotion of its new privacy policy, even while we can criticise the policy itself. Engagement, and Google is particularly active in engaging researchers and activists, is vital. The risks, however, aren't entirely unknown. Examples of people who have had sensitive information revealed about, for example, their sexuality are the more familiar stories. We should also be concerned about our profiles becoming the conflated with our "real" identity: Google already presents us with search results that it believes we want and so hides from us views or opinions with which we may disagree. Without being overly alarmist, this raises fundamental issues concerning our individuality, personal development and autonomy; not in the least through our ability to present the face we wish to present in different social contexts. Can we mitigate these risks without seeing them? I think we can try. If we drive a car with our eyes shut and foot flat on the accelerator then we will not see the wall before we hit it; we need to open our eyes, and I would also like a hand on the steering wheel - and preferably not one that's invisible. The distinction you draw between asking for forgiveness and seeking permission seems a very useful one - and reminds me of that all-too-familiar political rigmarole of the disgraced official's public "apology," where ostentatious contrition is somehow supposed to substitute for facing consequences or making amends. What, then, are the best mechanisms for making real consequences and amends possible in the areas we're talking about? I'm sure we agree that driving flat out with both eyes shut isn't a recipe for progress. But I remain less sure whose hands should be grasping the steering wheel and who gets to apply the brakes. This is especially true when it comes to those overlapping issues you identify: our ability to present ourselves to the world in ways we control and to control how the world is presented to us in turn. In each case I'm reminded of a phrase that the American legal scholar Cass Sunstein used in his 2009 book On Rumours. He argued that the dissemination of false or harmful materials via open technologies should be counterbalanced by a legal "chilling effect," making it easier to issue takedown notices and hold service operators responsible for content. Versions of this question have cropped up again and again, from the Stop Online Piracy Act to the net neutrality debate. And what interests me more than the rights or wrongs of such proposals (although I think we'd largely agree about these) is the massive, intractable scale of the impasse they seem to be circling. Those with most to hide - from brave revolutionaries to sinister government cronies - are, I think, already well aware that true privacy means having no digital records at all. For the rest of us, though, the question is whether preserving the unprecedented openness of a decentralised global network is compatible with putting truly effective mechanisms in place for chilling its excesses. This may well be unanswerable, at least for now. But in a sense we already face a miniature version of this question every day in the services we choose to use, and what we entrust them with. Should we be flocking towards the tidy, secure walled gardens of media ecosystems like Apple's - or running as fast as we can in the opposite direction? I believe that the fewer enforced restrictions on individual expression the better; that the true triumph of the internet is as an open platform for endless types of creativity. My hope is for means to limit the harm to individuals that comes from exploiting the inherent inspectability that the internet brings. I'm aware of the apparent paradox here: I'm asking for the internet to be open and free for individuals, but restricted for corporations. Let me instead argue that those who by offering us services place themselves in a position of power over us be required to exercise that power with responsibility. Chilling effects are, of course, a powerful tool, the results of which we experience every day. Unfortunately, this form of legal approach massively favours large corporations that have the resources to wage endless legal battles and, in practice, often use it to "chill" creativity and freedom of expression. I would advise anyone to look into chillingeffects.org, which comprehensively documents the phenomenon. I don't have a simple answer, and I don't believe that one exists; we need to find a subtle balance of technology, law, consumer pressure and individual education; and we need it at a global level. We need to act beforehand, because we can't take back data once it is released. We will get things wrong, of course, but we need to take a holistic and long-term look at how we can affect the technologies that, in turn, affect us. We would do well to look at the development of the environmental movement, which has laid the groundwork for this kind of debate. We need to consider proactive means to protect the information environment that we have created from long-term externalities that are not immediately apparent. As to the services that we choose to use, walled gardens are initially convenient and comfortable; what terrifies me is the extent to which they lead us to stop thinking beyond the walls, and to conform to the safe options that they present. I prefer the freedom and complexity of open services, without walls or gates, that do not ask who I am and do not ask me to stay the same. Thank you for your considered response - and for your neat articulation of the tension between individual freedom and corporate responsibility. Another way of putting this, perhaps, is that in the internet we possess an unprecedentedly democratic set of tools which also gifts unprecedented power to those controlling its infrastructure. There is, for me, more thus far to celebrate than there is to mourn in the changes these tools have brought. But you're surely right to highlight the difficulty of acting in advance across many interlocked fields to safeguard against as-yet-indeterminate perils. Your example of the environmental movement laying the groundwork for this debate also seems almost too apt, in that it suggests how little effective action tends collectively to be taken by humanity when a problem - however menacing - is nebulous and as yet fully to unfold. As a writer, I'd like nothing better than for eloquent explanations and expert insights to create an entirely persuasive movement anatomising technology's opportunities and perils. I can't help feeling, though, that words will never be enough; and that the most necessary counterpoint to the resources corporations and governments possess remains that one field where weight of numbers truly counts, direct action. Here, from Occupy and UK Uncut to the Arab spring, the present is richly stocked with role models and warnings: with devolved, ideologically charged movements embodying many of those virtues your last message sets out. There's surely hope in this notion of privacy defended by avowedly public action - and safeguarded by those open, evolving digital services you advocate. But only if those protesting are ultimately able to find common cause with those wielding other forms of power. ■ Joss Wright is Fresnel research fellow at Oxford University, studying cryptography, privacy-enhancing technologies and anonymous communications. ■ Tom Chatfield is a writer and commentator on digital culture. His latest book, How to Thrive in a Digital Age (Macmillan), is due out in May. Facebook projected initial public offering, 2012 Twitter $7.7bn projected based on share value LinkedIn $4.4bn Google automatically scans all emails to and from Gmail to target adverts. And the company, whose services include Docs, YouTube, Blogger, Plus and more, now combines all its services into a single profile of you. Many Facebook apps have been shown to read and share your details with their authors. Smartphone apps for Facebook, Twitter and others have been found reading text messages and address books. iPhones were shown last year to be frequently reporting the user's geographical location. In 2001, a researcher presented the governor of Massachusetts with his personal medical records 'reidentified' from anonymously released data. AOL released an anonymous search dataset in 2006. New York Times journalists identified one individual through name and location clues, revealing her entire search history. In 2008, NetFlix released its user rating history. Researchers were able to link individuals to their ratings, revealing their history of movie watching for the past three years.