Re: ISSUE-28: MRC presentation

On 11/2/12 4:16 PM, Alan Chapell wrote:
> I'm sorry your feelings were hurt by this exchange, Walter. My use of the
> term colonoscopy was perhaps too colorful. So, I'll clarify.
> 
> Over the past 18 months, many on this list have continuously asked for
> more and more information regarding 'industry' practices while repeatedly
> refusing to respond to in-kind requests. Its become tiresome and
> unproductive. The demand for an in-depth analysis of MRC while refusing to
> spend time evaluating the consequences of this group's output (e.g.,
> whether it will actually benefit consumers, whether it furthers anyone's
> privacy interests) seems out of balance to me.
> 
> Do you disagree? I'd love to hear your thoughts...

Dear Alan,

My views on privacy as a fundamental human right as well as the ability
to partake in a digitally interconnected society without being
scrutinised continuously by either private or public entities as a
necessity for the freedoms of conscience and expression that do not need
justification in economic numbers have already been labeled in this
group as 'hyperbole' and 'offensive', so I'm not sure whether further
expounding of them is really wanted by those who represent the
surveillance economy in this group.

And to answer your question: it is fundamentally impossible to gauge the
economic impact of this group's output unless we do know current practices.

So yes, I disagree that the prism of economic impact is wide enough and
I also do disagree with the incessant requests for justification of what
are fundamental human rights.

To turn it around, if you are concerned with an outcome that would
restrict with industry's ability to remain profitable, why is industry
still participating in a process that is self-regulatory? Is there any
reason other than postponement of government regulatory action past
elections that I happen to overlook?

Regards,

 Walter

Received on Friday, 2 November 2012 15:41:59 UTC