- From: Haakon Bratsberg <haakon.bratsberg@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:14:53 +0100
- To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Cc: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, public-tracking@w3.org, John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>, Matthias Schunter <mts@zurich.ibm.com>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
I think the proposed express the underlying concerns about tracking and privacy.
Some comments:
- Do not forget Samuel D. Warren who co-authored "The Right to Privacy"
- Agree that Alan Westin's book "Privacy and Freedom" from 1967 was the start of
the next round of privacy discussion that ended up with legislation for example
in Norway.
- But; the thinking around privacy as evolved since late 60s/early 70s. We should
probably include a more recent, acknowledged definition. I'll think about it,
but no good candidate spring to mind that is globally acceptable.
- I'm probably a biased Norwegian, but I kind of like the definition proposed
by Selmer and Blekeli in 1977: Privacy is the legitimate interest of a person
to control the collection and use of information that relates to him/herself.
(Data og personvern" p. 21, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo).
Haakon
On Feb 23, 2012, at 10:48 PM, Rigo Wenning wrote:
> Here is my proposed text:
>
> ==================================
> Privacy as first mentioned by Louis Brandeis in 1890 is the right to be left
> alone. But Privacy is also the term used by Alan Westin in 1967. And here,
> Privacy is about large dossiers about people in computers that are used to
> make decisions about those people. And this triggered a discussion about the
> autonomy of decision making of the individual in a completely computerized
> society that is ongoing since then. And this Specification is a very part of
> that discussion.
>
> The fear is that by having large profiles about people, identified or
> identifiable, there may be two phenomena:
>
> 1/ Direct influence
> The government may have access to such profiles and gain too much information
> about citizens. This information is then used to influence opinions in a
> certain direction. But it could also be used to identify and target the
> leading intellectuals and their networks.
>
> 2/ Self constraining and self censoring
>
> Every one of us is trying to maintain a certain image to the outside world.
> The success of social networks shows that many people really care about their
> image. But everyone of us has also sides that do not match the image we try to
> convey. This may be a disease, this may be a certain part of our character. If
> we do not know, what others know about us, how could we forge our image? Many
> people assume that the outside world knows more than it really knows. Once
> people realize what the big unknown may know about them, they start to worry.
> This leads to a self constraint behavior to avoid further collection. Less
> searches. Searches only for non sensitive things. Having AIDS a person
> wouldn't look at AIDS pages anymore. People would not look at controversial
> information and opinions anymore. The fear has hampered the opinion building.
> So not the profile itself created the bad effect, but the imagination about
> what those profiles could contain and be used for. With the addition of some
> high publicity cases and some running urban myths, e.g. accidentally being on
> a no-fly list or the like, the fear establishes itself in large portions of
> society. And this has the potential is to seriously hamper the opinion
> building that is so crucial for a democratic society.
> ==================================
>
> Hope this explains why I sometimes say: We kill our democracies by accident.
> Because I don't think people creating those large profiles today are really
> aware of the psychological dangers they create. It's all only about
> advertisement, isn't it? It isn't actually, so let's work that it is again.
>
> I think this text would also benefit from a review by a native english
> speaker.
>
> Rigo
>
> On Saturday 11 February 2012 19:12:40 Nicholas Doty wrote:
>> On Feb 11, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Rigo Wenning wrote:
>>> 2/ While the consumer-protection aspect is clearly stated, the
>>> protection of democracy aspect is not clear and is hidden in the "human
>>> rights" statement.
>> Rigo, do you want to suggest some text to explain the democratic concern?
>>
>> From my part, some text we came up with in one of our small groups in
> Brussels may be relevant to this enumeration/elaboration of privacy concerns:
>>> * Experiencing targeting based on data about me from unexpected sources.
>>> (In many cases, large profiles of data about me or people like me
>>> already exist, compiled from either online or offline data.) *
>>> Retention of browsing history data by unexpected sources.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 13:15:34 UTC