- From: Joe Hall <joe@cdt.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 15:50:33 -0500
- To: rob@blaeu.com
- Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, public-privacy@w3.org
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com> wrote: > > Joe Hall schreef op 2015-01-26 19:38: > (...)> >>> >>> c) it recognizes that privacy is not a binary state — it’s not an >>> either-or (you have it or you don’t); it’s a spectrum, and it’s about >>> perception and control and exposure as much as it is about recording and so >>> on. >> >> >> Forgive me again... are you saying that by being able to have as many >> persona as I can keep track of that I'm "articulating" (a social >> science term of art, sorry) different aspects of my being that I'd >> rather servers not link together? That is rather interesting. For >> example, you could have a persona for activities that you want privacy >> of a certain level (say me looking at job candidate websites online) >> and another persona for activities of a higher level (say, if I'm >> looking at content online that I'd rather not have linked to my >> not-so-private self)? >> >> thanks again, Joe > > > Joe, David, > If I am not mistaken, Joe's description opens up a possible implementation > of contextual integrity [Nissenbaum]. That's a neat way to think about it! The persona concept here is focused on the user controlling the notion of context, when in Helen's theory contexts are more socially constructed, I believe (so not just a product of the user's consciousness, but of norms hammered out in messy society). For example, in CI you can argue that secondary uses of health information that may be a privacy violation for the individual (e.g., sharing a positive HIV test result with a national health service) are not problematic writ large if that data is used to provide a larger benefit to the larger context of "health". Said differently, using a test result to protect population health that may go against the confidentiality desires of the individual is not a misuse because it preserves the context of the original information interaction between the individual and physician. Ok, now I may have confused myself. I'll stop now! best, Joe -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall Chief Technologist Center for Democracy & Technology 1634 I ST NW STE 1100 Washington DC 20006-4011 (p) 202-407-8825 (f) 202-637-0968 joe@cdt.org PGP: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10 1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871
Received on Monday, 26 January 2015 20:51:21 UTC