How to prevent our privacy from being abused in the Internet Society

Our privacy is exploited?

These two graphs are about your idea, but they're not your idea. It's important to begin a short essay by expressing clearly to the reader the reason to remaining reading. You should say here, from the first sentence, as clearly as possible, what you want the reader to take from the essay.

What can be the countermeasure for invasion of our privacy?

Laws and regulations

The identification between "regulation" and consent is unestablished, and I think probably just wrong. Environmental regulation is not based on consent: you cannot personally consent to breathe posisonous air or have your children drink dangerous water. Regulation is based instead on the assessment of risks and benefits of the people, by the people, and for the people. That's democratic regulation, surely not less preferable than rules about private consent.

Education

However, to my extent of understanding, current education does not teach computer knowledge and technique from the perspective of enabling people to protect their right to privacy from data companies. Scope of education is decided by competent government and it takes time for the government to decide. In addition, data companies will oppose to such policy as will make people not use their services and decrease their sale of service, as a result of which reform of education might be delayed.

Thus, although education might be effective way to preserve our right, it might take years and even decades to reach ideal one. As securing our right to privacy is emergent, which is clearly shown by the Great Hack and the Social Dilemma, education might not meet such urgent requirement at present.

Why are children the only people who can be taught? Why should it take decades to teach what you and I can learn?

Sharing IT knowledge and technique through appropriate system and software

People who are aware of danger of using social network service are able to create tools and device which will let other people learn how to use computers and useful internet services without being exploited unduly by commercial companies. This would be easier and faster way for us to share the knowledge with people all over the world.

However, the weakness is that some people might not able to get access to such tools for some reasons. People who have ability and motivation to learn can learn, but people who do not cannot. It might widen the gap between those who have access and those who do not.

And therefore, what should be done by people who want to create the infrastructure of a freer society? It's not as though we're going to give up on the basis of the objections made here.

What is a better method?

Why do we talk about "must make people learn," when we could talk about helping people to want to learn? Is what I am doing here better characterized as making you learn things or creating an environment in which you might want more to learn things?

Considering current situation, sharing IT knowledge and technique through proper learning system and software is better way until when people finally have common understanding that such knowledge and technique should be taught to young children at school. Shared software and system for learning might be a better transient method at the moment.

I think it would make the next draft stronger to say at the outset what you want the reader to learn from you. On reading the current draft, I think your idea is something along the lines of, we need to make everybody learn enough about information technology to make it possible for them to understand the issues about which we need to make public policy.

From a standpoint of writing, the essay would be improved if that were said at the beginning, followed by explanation of how you came to this idea, and what you consider its implications to be. The reader then has your idea, something of its past and future, and your conclusion, which leads out from those, and one might hope would contain a further question, based on your idea, that the reader could follow for herself.

From a substantive standpoint, I do wonder if your idea is right. I come at that by two routes. First, I wonder whether it is credible that the knowledges involved will be uniformly distributed throughout the population. That seems very unlikely to me. That these ideas and forms of reasoning can be approximated as parts of other things that people learn, in the social curriculum in the broadest sense, seems to me more likely. Talking about that means being more specific about what concepts and knowledges one would want people to have. When we are clear about what we are teaching it is easier to understand how.

My other route of questioning, as I showed above, is that I'm doubtful of the "making people learn" approach to learning. I think people learn best in freedom, that is, when they are self-consciously in charge of their learning, and are experimenting with the world in whatever way they are, under their own direction and for their own purposes. There is training for social value, such as the safety demonstration at the start of an airplane flight. Depending on occupations and social roles, this sort of training may be a larger or smaller portion of the individual's overall learning, and it's not the proportion of learning I know about, as a teacher, or even as a trainer of lawyers.