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

Re: ISSUE-28: MRC presentation

From: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 11:57:48 -0400
To: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CCB962F9.25069%achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Hi Walter - 

I would encourage you to re-read my last email. The two examples I gave were
not economic. I'll post the examples again  hopefully formatted a bit more
clearly.

The demand for an in-depth analysis of MRC while refusing to spend
time evaluating the consequences of this group's output: For example:
* whether it will actually benefit consumers
* whether it furthers anyone's privacy interests

seems out of balance to me.
 


Do you disagree? I'd love to hear your thoughtsŠ


Moreover, I'd encourage you not to be so quick in spewing out loaded phrases
such "surveillance economy" and to make wild accusations re: my intentions.
Doing so is neither polite, nor productive.

Thanks.






On 11/2/12 11:41 AM, "Walter van Holst" <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> On 11/2/12 4:16 PM, Alan Chapell wrote:
>>  I'm sorry your feelings were hurt by this exchange, Walter. My use of the
>>  term colonoscopy was perhaps too colorful. So, I'll clarify.
>>  
>>  Over the past 18 months, many on this list have continuously asked for
>>  more and more information regarding 'industry' practices while repeatedly
>>  refusing to respond to in-kind requests. Its become tiresome and
>>  unproductive. The demand for an in-depth analysis of MRC while refusing to
>>  spend time evaluating the consequences of this group's output (e.g.,
>>  whether it will actually benefit consumers, whether it furthers anyone's
>>  privacy interests) seems out of balance to me.
>>  
>>  Do you disagree? I'd love to hear your thoughts...
> 
> Dear Alan,
> 
> My views on privacy as a fundamental human right as well as the ability
> to partake in a digitally interconnected society without being
> scrutinised continuously by either private or public entities as a
> necessity for the freedoms of conscience and expression that do not need
> justification in economic numbers have already been labeled in this
> group as 'hyperbole' and 'offensive', so I'm not sure whether further
> expounding of them is really wanted by those who represent the
> surveillance economy in this group.
> 
> And to answer your question: it is fundamentally impossible to gauge the
> economic impact of this group's output unless we do know current practices.
> 
> So yes, I disagree that the prism of economic impact is wide enough and
> I also do disagree with the incessant requests for justification of what
> are fundamental human rights.
> 
> To turn it around, if you are concerned with an outcome that would
> restrict with industry's ability to remain profitable, why is industry
> still participating in a process that is self-regulatory? Is there any
> reason other than postponement of government regulatory action past
> elections that I happen to overlook?
> 
> Regards,
> 
>  Walter
> 
> 
> 








Received on Friday, 2 November 2012 15:58:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:37 UTC