RE: Lightning talk at W3C camp

Thanks, Mark, for circling back around to the original proposal . . . I agree that frameworks for information accountability are exactly what we're supposed to be doing here! I just don't know that we get any closer to that by starting from the idea that privacy is dead.

That said, if Peter's intent is to provoke dialogue, well, mission accomplished! So maybe it's a great topic to put on the table.

From: Mark Lizar [mailto:mark.lizar@gmail.com]
Sent: 18 April 2012 15:46
To: Chappelle, Kasey, Vodafone Group
Cc: Marcos Caceres; Dan Brickley; Karl Dubost; Peter Kraker; public-privacy@w3.org
Subject: 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<mailto: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).