Re: Reciprocity of knowledge vs Power of abuse

Rigo, Edd,

Le 13 avr. 2011 à 05:28, Rigo Wenning a écrit :
> do we already celebrate an achievement if gadgets don't track us secretly but 
> openly?

Le 11 avr. 2011 à 23:21, Edd Dumbill a écrit :
> True, but being able to know what the other side have on you is the
> first step in preventing abuse.


I hear your argument and agree basically with it. We also have to be aware of the simplification of it, which will lead to:

 "If I track you openly (and you know it), there is no issue."

A user might be interested by knowing its location and not having the provider knowing about it. My best example of privacy aware geolocation system is the difference between cell-tower and GPS.

* GPS satellites broadcast signals and the device client computes the location. Only the user knows its location.
* Cell towers sends the parameters to a service which computes the location. The operator knows and records the location. 

They could perfectly dissociate the identification and the location. They do not. Knowing the location, because the operator knows it, doesn't solve the issue for some circumstances.

It's why I said reciprocity of knowledge doesn't protect the user of abuse. It just pushes the user to know (good) but doesn't leave the user with a choice (not good).

> I think companies are really afraid of the 
> overhead created by electronic access rights.

Yes definitely.  Management of Personal data. btw, rigo if you have time, you could read Fabrice Rochelandet book (very good). We should even try to invite him to the workshop.

> In the meantime, I would love to get my data from the telcos without being 
> forced to litigate my way through like Malte Spitz did in Germany (where you 
> actually _can_ get your data against cost contribution)

I would love to have the choice of memory-less systems such as GPS.

-- 
Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
Developer Relations & Tools, Opera Software

Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2011 13:50:42 UTC