Re: Lightning talk at W3C camp

+1

Just happen to be reading this while these emails are flying back and  
forth.

"Efforts to define and analyze the privacy concept
evolved considerably in the 20thcentury. In1975, Altman
conceptualizedprivacyasa“boundary regulation process
where by people optimize their accessibility along a spec-
trum of “openness” and “closedness” depending on
context”[30]. Similarly, Westin[31] described privacy as a
“personal adjustment process” in which individuals bal-
ance“the desire for privacy with the desire for disclosure
and communication” in the context of social norms and
theirenvironment. Privacy thus requires that an individual
has a means to exercise selective control of access to the self
and is aware of the potential consequences of exercising
that control [30], [32]. "

From:

EngineeringPrivacy
SarahSpiekermannandLorrieFaithCranor, Senior Member, IEEE

Perhaps, instead of phrasing information accountability in  
juxtaposition to a total loss of privacy, perhaps methods independant  
of the protocols being used can be looked as a way to explore
" the idea of information accountability)"

Personally, I think looking at how to implement information  
accountability on a technical, social, and legal level is a great  
focus.  Especially in the context of the individual being able to  
exercise legal, technical and social choices.  But not in the context  
of 'Privacy is Dead'

- Mark


On 18 Apr 2012, at 14:52, Chappelle, Kasey, Vodafone Group wrote:

> The right to be left alone or the right to be anonymous are only  
> parts of the right to privacy (the right and ability to withhold  
> certain information). It's more broadly about the right to  
> informational self-determination. Not just you can have my info or  
> you can't have my info, but maybe I want you to have it only for  
> certain reasons and not for others.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:marcosscaceres@gmail.com]
> Sent: 18 April 2012 14:45
> To: Dan Brickley
> Cc: Karl Dubost; Peter Kraker; public-privacy@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Lightning talk at W3C camp
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
>> On 18 April 2012 15:22, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com (mailto:karld@opera.com 
>> )> wrote:
>>>
>>> Le 18 avr. 2012 à 09:11, Dan Brickley a écrit :
>>>> The 'privacy is dead, get over it' line risks having us give up on
>>>> the possibility for private online communication rather
>>>> prematurely.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And… it is not true. Once again, what is privacy (in _your own_  
>>> definition)?
>>> I have my own idea, but I'm curious about this line of thought.
>>> Could Peter or Dan explain?
>>
>>
>>
>> I won't attempt an inclusive definition - it's probably a loose
>> family-resemblance kind of concept.
>>
>> But in this context - I value in particular the ability for people to
>> say and do things online with some technically and social/legally
>> grounded evidence that unexpected others aren't monitoring and  
>> logging
>> one's activities, e.g. to allow anonymous or pseudonymous activities.
>> In practice, you have to be very technical and have time on your  
>> hands
>> to achieve that without placing some trust in big companies to (a)
>> behave well (b) be easily infiltrated (c) be forced into misbehaviour
>> by govts.
>>
>
>
> I like "the right to be let alone". It's clear and simple, and  
> defines privacy as a right (which should be protected by law).
>