Re: Lightning talk at W3C camp

Hi Joe,

 

I absolutely agree with you, we also need a good understanding of what is
acceptable and what not on a holistic level. Therefore, we need a broad
debate on how to adjust existing concepts to a digital and heavily
interconnected world. If anyone is still interested, I have summed up my
thoughts (in a hopefully understandable way) in a blogpost:
http://science20.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/post-privacy/

 

Best,

Peter

 

> JOSEPH ALHADEFF wrote:

> 

> Hi all,

> 

> Sorry to come in on this topic mid stride, and apologies if I missed

> some of the conversations context, but I am concerned that we are

> dealing with privacy  in terms of the subjective perception of privacy.

> Clearly concepts of control and self-determination are important, but

> personal data, and related information which informs or extends it, is

> context sensitive (somewhat referenced in Westin's concepts of

> adjustment as well as Seda's concepts of evolution) and often subject

> to shared control, governance or provenance. Thus,  privacy as a

> concept has to include apportionment and allocation of rights and

> obligations across parties related to the uses and purposes of the

> particular situation - none of which is conducive to a quotable

> definition....

> 

> Best-

> 

> Joe

> 

> On 4/19/2012 6:39 AM, Peter Kraker wrote:

> > 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>
http://www.slideshare.net/pkraker/post-privacy-what-should-we-do-

 <http://www.slideshare.net/pkraker/post-privacy-what-should-we-do-after>
after

> > -the-fail-of-privacy

> > [2]

> >
<http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/unlikeus/2012/03/09/seda-gurses-and-pr>
http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/unlikeus/2012/03/09/seda-gurses-and-

 <http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/unlikeus/2012/03/09/seda-gurses-and-pr> >
pr

> > ivacy-in-online-social-networks/