W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-privacy@w3.org > October to December 2012

RE: skeleton draft regarding fingerprinting guidance

From: Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 00:55:11 +0000
Message-ID: <BLU002-W28F072F0D338E992013D7EAA4B0@phx.gbl>
To: Georg Koppen <g.koppen@jondos.de>
CC: W3C Public Privacy <public-privacy@w3.org>





Hi Georg,

I was trying to give a parallel example that readers might be familiar with.  Readers might not expect mention of personal safety in such guidance.

What is the purpose of including a few unqualified stories about personal safety?

I suggest it is unlikely that readers will empathize and more likely that readers will conclude that your environment is extreme and not relevant to them.  There are endless stories that could be told about links between a loss of security of personal information (privacy) and subjective harm to people, and many may not involve personal safety but still be of concern.

Anyway it's just a suggestion.  If you have a rhetorical purpose in mind that helps communicate the need for privacy then I would be curious to know as it could help me improve my own writing.

cheers
Fred

> Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 20:25:34 +0100
> From: g.koppen@jondos.de
> To: fredandw@live.com
> CC: npdoty@w3.org; public-privacy@w3.org
> Subject: Re: skeleton draft regarding fingerprinting guidance
> 
> > I suggest removing any discussion of 'Personal safety and anonymous browsing', as it does not seem relevant.  For example, we all accept that losing security of our web banking signin details is a threat and do not require a list of stories showing how this could be damaging.
> 
> Could you elaborate on this? You are neither talking about personal
> physical safety nor about anonymous browsing in your arguments but about
> security. Thus, I don't see why that discussion should get removed.
> 
> Georg
Received on Saturday, 8 December 2012 00:55:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 8 December 2012 00:55:40 GMT