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: Robin Wilton <wilton@isoc.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:54:31 +0000
Cc: Public Privacy <public-privacy@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0EB0C2B1-D6E4-48C5-9412-16A8CA600F53@isoc.org>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Again, the nuances you introduce (reasonably) illustrate that privacy as a social construct is a subtle and complex thing; it has very little to do with "forgetfulness", and a lot to do with an awareness of factors such as social convention, embarrassment, deceit, discretion, and many other non-binary things computers have a hard time reproducing…

R

Robin Wilton
Technical Outreach Director - Identity and Privacy
Internet Society

email: wilton@isoc.org
Phone: +44 705 005 2931
Twitter: @futureidentity




On 13 Dec 2012, at 22:42, David Singer wrote:

> 
> On Dec 13, 2012, at 14:32 , Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Le 14 déc. 2012 à 04:11, David Singer a écrit :
>>> OK, but…if I saw you in the pharmacy yesterday, surely I have the 'right' to 'remember' my own observations, no?
>> 
>> yes
> 
> OK, stop there.  That's a yes.
> 
>> and it's fine, because 
>> 
>> * it's only the few people around who have seen me
>> * it's likely you will forget me
> 
> Perhaps I made a mental note, as it was a strange place for such an encounter
> 
>> * it's likely that you don't know who I am
> 
> Perhaps I had already met you
> 
>> * it's likely that you will not sell to someone else my personal information or at least at any scale which is critical
> 
> Perhaps I bumped into a colleague from Opera and happened to say I saw you there
> 
>> * it's likely that you will share it with only a few people in a way which will not be identical to your experience.
> 
> These are nuances now, and you are answering from a practical point of view, that it doesn't matter much.  OK, I get that.  But you don't have control over the nuances, so why should variations in the nuances give you control over the base data?
> 
> 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?
> 
>> All these *little* nuances have very strong consequences for the social glue.
> 
> 
> True, but I am still trying to find the principles underlying these questions.
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I also react very negatively to the surveillance society, but the principles here do puzzle me.  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. Is that really true? For example, I seem to recall that truth is a defense to a libel action.
> 
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 14 December 2012 08:56:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 14 December 2012 08:56:00 GMT