Letters: Jeff Jarvis defends internet companies, Royal Society fellows defend Lord Lawson

A net gain

Sir: Jamie Bartlett tries to balance plus and minus, and ends with zero (‘Little Brothers are watching you’, 7 December). But I wonder: why lead with the negative? Yes, data can be misused, marketers and government can misbehave (no — they will). But what are we to do? Block progress? Why don’t we write the rules instead? A billion-plus people are sharing their observations, questions, answers and lives online because they — we — find benefit in connecting with each other: offering services, gathering information and knowledge, and finding efficiencies. I engage in willing transactions with Google (though not the NSA) to deliver greater relevance with less noise. I celebrate the redistribution of power and challenge to institutions. Let’s consider the net not merely as a threat to privacy but also as a boon to public-ness.
Jeff Jarvis
Author of
What would Google do? New York, USA
 
Sir: I enjoyed Mr Bartlett’s frightening piece about the internet, but may I share one of its upsides? Those of us spending Christmas with relatives can now shop online and have our presents sent straight there. No more lugging leaden suitcases on packed trains. Bliss! But do send your hosts a bottle of wine, to thank them in advance for the trouble of collecting your post.
Sarah Meddle
Morpeth

A high old time

Most popular

Julie Burchill

Will I ever pee again?

Sir: Neither of your contributors on addiction mentioned that drugs which are now illicit were mostly legally and cheaply available to citizens of Victorian and Edwardian Britain without causing the collapse of civilisation (‘Is addiction a disease?’, 30 November).

America’s prohibition of alcohol was called ‘the noble experiment’. It was repealed because the costs far outweighed the benefits. The prohibition of other drugs has been even more disastrous, partly because they are much easier to smuggle than whisky. Opium, methadone and heroin are cheap.