Re: Lightning talk at W3C camp

Hi Kasey and all,

yes, my pitch was intently provocative to start a discussion (it  
explicitely says so on the slides that I had prepared for the  
lightning talk [1]) I think that the notion of post privacy is very  
suited to highlight that the models and system that we have in place  
right now might not work in a highly interconnected digital world. My  
conclusion was that not all information will be apparently available  
but (almost) all information will be somehow obtainable by anyone. In  
that context information accountability comes in, which in my view  
would provide a much more suitable way of handling such a world. But  
the idea clearly was to have a debate about all of these topics.

On the definition of privacy: I do think that it makes a lot of sense  
to define privacy as informational self-determination as Kasey points  
out. This is very close to what Seda Gürses proposes: seeing privacy  
as a practice which constantly evolves in the societal discourse; I  
can really recommend her work on the topic, see e.g. [2].

Best,
Peter

[1]  
http://www.slideshare.net/pkraker/post-privacy-what-should-we-do-after-the-fail-of-privacy
[2]  
http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/unlikeus/2012/03/09/seda-gurses-and-privacy-in-online-social-networks/

Zitat von "Chappelle, Kasey, Vodafone Group" <Kasey.Chappelle@vodafone.com>:

> 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).

Received on Thursday, 19 April 2012 10:40:21 UTC