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

Re: search engines: right to be forgotten, sitemap.xml proposed solution

From: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:38:01 +0900
Message-Id: <E6207A9A-6694-4655-B07D-49FCC74B7871@opera.com>
Cc: Public Privacy <public-privacy@w3.org>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>

Le 14 déc. 2012 à 07:42, David Singer a écrit :
> I am asking a formal question: what rights do [I | anyone | a corporation] have to retain information which is both true and legitimately acquired?  Exactly why do you have the right to tell me to forget something?

You are asking for a binary answer, which I do not have and that's the issue, and why I'm *very* careful with the making of a legal system for designing tools.

In the praise for the fog. A fog in a forest reveals things depending on your position, your distance with objects, the density of the fog. I'm not striking for a world where everything with 100% opacity, nor with 100% transparency.

I'm advocating for a power balance, if you prefer. And here we are entering in difficult territories which will alienate many people from the ads, marketing industry (including on this list).

The online Ads industry, as designed today, is not compatible with any notions of choices and power balance that would allow the individuals to have a sense of privacy. Changing the current situation means many companies would disappear (others would be created), and because of that, and because they have the (economic) power now, the change will unlikely come from them. You need a very high ethical and philosophical bar about your own industry to commit a business suicide ;)

> What we seem to be saying is that we always had these principles, but in physical life we didn't bother to exercise them much because of things like the nuances you mention above.

Not necessary. The physical proximity and the scale is an important reality. Sharing your physical presence with 10 persons in the room of a café and 1,000,000 is not the same thing. Having the choice to change the café because something unpleasant happened in one is another option. Changing city too.

The scale and the power of actions of users online is quite different.

Because you mentioned it:
The surveillance society is playing on the ground that no crime should ever be committed against honest citizens AND that honest citizens will be protected against hidden bad citizens if everyone is watched. This is silly on many levels. Add a bit of Surveillance Industry business ecosystem on top of that.

Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
Developer Relations, Opera Software
Received on Friday, 14 December 2012 01:38:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:55 UTC