- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 12:53:33 -0500
- To: "'Danny Ayers'" <danny666@virgilio.it>, AndrewWatt2000@aol.com, xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- Cc: sem-web@yahoogroups.com, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE0DF7F2@hq1.pcmail.ingr.com>
We've touched on these issues before, and I discussed them in the Golem article for the now sadly defunct Markup magazine that MIT published. The battle for privacy was lost the day the first Mosaic browser hit the net. The web was fielded witlessly. 1. Most information one might want to declare private becomes public by multiple means. For example, you may think you are keeping a home address private but you applied for an FCC ham license without noticing that the FCC lets ham web sites have access to that information for their call sign databases. With that and a handy free web search map, bingo, directions to your front door. A simple name search is all one needs even if one has never used the web or gotten an email account. Databases leak. 2. The problem is not simply privacy but aggregation (see 1) and the illusions of aggregation. If what is said about you and not what you say is the means by which you are classified by a search engine, you are the sum of the impressions others have, right, wrong, indifferent or malicious. Gossip kills reputations. 3. In many cases, your governments are much more tightly constrained over the information they collect and share. Dissemination management policies are legally instituted in all American states and probably in Europe as well. There are also purge statutes on the books that enforce removing information from these databases after a period of time or under certain rules (eg, juvenile status). Law enforcement institutions are constrained as to information they can share with one another. Yes, 911 resulted in a loosening of these controls, but failure to coordinate exposed the public to threat. Can the genie be put back in the bottle? I doubt it, but by contrast, the web has none of this. No rules cuts equally. The web routes around restraints; even ones that protect privacy, decency, and ethical use. The Web is not a democratizing institution in that it empowers without constraint. The problem is not what information is collected but the authority and abilities others have to use it without your consent and without legal oversight. Like it or not, the damage to privacy that has most affected the most people was done by the web and those who promoted a laissez faire technology for information publication and aggregation. They is Us. len -----Original Message----- From: Danny Ayers [mailto:danny666@virgilio.it] [Andrew said] Perhaps, in a broader context, an even more important aspect is the notion of eXtreme Monitoring Language! The article from TBL et al in Scientific American started with an example where medical data which, in Europe at least, would be seen as confidential information was passed around with what at least some would view as gay abandon. If machine processing of semantics is implemented we, as individuals, are highly likely to lose control of the privacy of our personal information if we cannot know or influence directly which parts of personal information (and its meaning) is accessible to "Big Brother".
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 18:27:28 UTC