W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > June 2012

RE: ISSUE-16, ACTION-166: define (data) collection

From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:02:20 -0700
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
CC: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <63294A1959410048A33AEE161379C8023D1858FEC8@SP2-EX07VS02.ds.corp.yahoo.com>

This is a long standing debate so I don't believe we settled this broader privacy debate in Princeton.  :-)

In your examples, there was a new "use" introduced to the data that existed and therefore you realized a possible privacy harm (if you use your definition of privacy).  If that new "use" was never introduced then your privacy was preserved.  So again, the issue is "use".  "Non-existence" is a strong remedy to ensure no unexpected "uses" but there are other remedies as well that would strongly limit the introduction of unexpected uses.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 2:56 PM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: Roy T. Fielding; Rigo Wenning; public-tracking@w3.org; Bjoern Hoehrmann
Subject: Re: ISSUE-16, ACTION-166: define (data) collection

On Jun 1, 2012, at 14:44 , Shane Wiley wrote:

> David,
> I would of course word it differently :-) but yes this is generally the same debate.  The issue is that those records don't represent your behavior unless someone uses them to try to determine your behavior.  

They may represent my behavior and then become available to someone who I never agreed could know anything about me.  Isn't that one of the essences of privacy - being able to choose who knows what about you? *Secrecy* is choosing things that *no-one* will know about me.  Privacy is at least partly having some say over who knows what about you, isn't it?  Yes, the actual harm happens when you become aware through some negative impact, of that unwanted information, but the privacy problem is with the information, not the later harm.

If the local drugstore keeps records of my non-prescription purchases, and later my insurance company discovers from them that I buy a lot of painkillers, and they later deny me health coverage because they suspect I have a condition, when did the privacy problem occur? It's somewhere in the keeping of records and their being available to the insurance company, isn't it? The denial of coverage (the thing I see) is ('just') a symptom.

I thought we settled this in Princeton...

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Friday, 1 June 2012 22:03:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:50 UTC