- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:31:20 +0200
- To: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
- Cc: Peter Kraker <peter.kraker@tugraz.at>, public-privacy@w3.org
On 18 April 2012 15:22, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com> wrote: > > Le 18 avr. 2012 à 09:11, Dan Brickley a écrit : >> The 'privacy is dead, get over it' line risks having us >> give up on the possibility for private online communication rather >> prematurely. > > And… it is not true. Once again, what is privacy (in _your own_ definition)? > I have my own idea, but I'm curious about this line of thought. > Could Peter or Dan explain? I won't attempt an inclusive definition - it's probably a loose family-resemblance kind of concept. But in this context - I value in particular the ability for people to say and do things online with some technically and social/legally grounded evidence that unexpected others aren't monitoring and logging one's activities, e.g. to allow anonymous or pseudonymous activities. In practice, you have to be very technical and have time on your hands to achieve that without placing some trust in big companies to (a) behave well (b) be easily infiltrated (c) be forced into misbehaviour by govts. Dan
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2012 13:31:58 UTC