W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > November 2012

RE: ISSUE-28: MRC presentation

From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 08:53:10 -0700
To: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <63294A1959410048A33AEE161379C8027484B8125F@SP2-EX07VS02.ds.corp.yahoo.com>

While you may personally believe in your definition of privacy as a fundamental human right, the force of law and generally accepted practices in society may not perfectly align with your vision (one of the reasons your participate in these forums would be my assumption).  So while it's your personal perspective, we're equally interested to understand "harms" from others in the group and how these equate to a real-world impact (rather than an impact on your perception of a human right).  I don't disagree with your position but rather I hope we can document harms outside of that singular perception.

I don't believe this sincere request is either "hyperbole" or "offensive" but an important element of the proportionality discussion to ensure the ends justify the means.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Walter van Holst [mailto:walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl] 
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 8:41 AM
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: 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?


Received on Friday, 2 November 2012 15:54:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:00 UTC