W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-privacy@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: indicating 'private browsing mode' over the net (was Re: Super Cookies in Privacy Browsing mode)

From: Joe Hall <joe@cdt.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 15:50:33 -0500
Message-ID: <CABtrr-X_KceftW7ipiDdUE6MJNypkp9HYNbv-+5ZS5R0sizAUw@mail.gmail.com>
To: rob@blaeu.com
Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, public-privacy@w3.org
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com> wrote:
> Joe Hall schreef op 2015-01-26 19:38:
> (...)>
>>> c) it recognizes that privacy is not a binary state — it’s not an
>>> either-or (you have it or you don’t); it’s a spectrum, and it’s about
>>> perception and control and exposure as much as it is about recording and so
>>> on.
>> Forgive me again... are you saying that by being able to have as many
>> persona as I can keep track of that I'm "articulating" (a social
>> science term of art, sorry) different aspects of my being that I'd
>> rather servers not link together? That is rather interesting. For
>> example, you could have a persona for activities that you want privacy
>> of a certain level (say me looking at job candidate websites online)
>> and another persona for activities of a higher level (say, if I'm
>> looking at content online that I'd rather not have linked to my
>> not-so-private self)?
>> thanks again, Joe
> Joe, David,
> If I am not mistaken, Joe's description opens up a possible implementation
> of contextual integrity [Nissenbaum].

That's a neat way to think about it!

The persona concept here is focused on the user controlling the notion
of context, when in Helen's theory contexts are more socially
constructed, I believe (so not just a product of the user's
consciousness, but of norms hammered out in messy society). For
example, in CI you can argue that secondary uses of health information
that may be a privacy violation for the individual (e.g., sharing a
positive HIV test result with a national health service) are not
problematic writ large if that data is used to provide a larger
benefit to the larger context of "health". Said differently, using a
test result to protect population health that may go against the
confidentiality desires of the individual is not a misuse because it
preserves the context of the original information interaction between
the individual and physician.

Ok, now I may have confused myself. I'll stop now!

best, Joe

Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Chief Technologist
Center for Democracy & Technology
1634 I ST NW STE 1100
Washington DC 20006-4011
(p) 202-407-8825
(f) 202-637-0968
PGP: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871
Received on Monday, 26 January 2015 20:51:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 26 January 2015 20:51:22 UTC