Comments on: “Can” versus “Should”

By: devangshu

devangshu — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:17:09 +0000

Imagine a world where three features were mandated by law into every browser/ ISP/ spyware / online- transaction and it was a felony not to comply

Feature 1) A small window that told you exactly who your machine was streaming data to in real-time
Feature 2) A LARGE FONT disclaimer that said something like “Yahoo / The NSA / Who ever is collecting your personal data NOW. Stop Y/N?”everytime this happened.
Feature 3) A cache that contained a record of every data collection that had occurred.
My privacy concerns would be somewhat eased because I would at least know if my privacy was being violated.
Yes, I’m willing to trade some data for convenience
Yes, I understand about the security concerns
But I do want to know if my data is being shared and by whom
and I believe the security concerns could still be addressed.
Sorry long post – hope the health is better
DD

By: dancingmango » Just because you can, doesn’t mean that you should

dancingmango » Just because you can, doesn’t mean that you should — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:24:17 +0000

[...] a recent Economist article, JP Rangaswami blogged about “can versus should“. His theme was around DRM and identity; just because [...]

By: alan patrick

alan patrick — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:31:37 +0000

I agree…I have blogged myself that I think this area – privacy / trust – will be one of eth big battlegrounds over the next few years.

The abuse of social media is still largeley unremarked, but I suspect this will change.

By: JP

JP — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 08:31:52 +0000

Connections do matter. Yet we have to avoid some of the scaremongering that can take place as a result of such statements. I recall seeing some really stupid articles on the Semantic Web as a result of such scaremongering.

Whether it is identity or digital rights or purchasing patterns, I think there are two simple principles:

Preference and behavioural information belongs to the individual unless explicitly agreed otherwise

This principle can be broken as and when there is just cause, where someone, be it a bank or state or whatever, needs to intervene because there is prima facie reason to do so…..in order to protect the first principle for all.

The challenge is to ensure that people don’t misuse the second principle. Whether for ID cards or for music ownership, the principle remains the same.

By: DE

DE — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 23:46:26 +0000

Privacy can reasonably be traded, only anonymity is valuable.

I’m delighted that my bank can, on occasion, ring me up and check that my last purchase was actually made by me. If they wish to sell aggregated information about my spending patterns, merged with thousands of others, ok.

It’s when I buy a porn magazine with cash in my local newsagent that I risk my privacy, because someone who actually knows me may gossip. My identity can be damaged, because a nosy neighbour made a correlation.

Connections matter, not silo data.