M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
« Nov | Jan » | |||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Simon Phipps on ☆ Sunday Cabbage | |
Bart Smaalders on ☆ Sunday Cabbage | |
Mark Wielaard on ☝ OIN’s New Linux Defini… | |
Simon Phipps on ☝ OIN’s New Linux Defini… | |
Mark Wielaard on ☝ OIN’s New Linux Defini… | |
Ian Davis on ☝ Why I Want My Pi | |
Links – Educat… on ☆ IPEG-SA Announces Tapeworm… |
☝ | My articles elsewhere |
☞ | Daily links |
☆ | New articles posted here |
☂ | Site news |
✈ | Travel-related |
♫ | Music-related |
⚡ | Tweets |
A discussion 1 2 3 4 broke out on Identi.ca recently where it became clear that the distinction between anonymity and privacy is not clear for some people. It led to the opportunity to discuss the nature of both concepts (albeit in 140-character bursts) with some smart people devoted to both, people I respect greatly. I’ve been left with some bite-sized explanations that I hope others will appreciate as well.
I’ll add further points as they arise. Discussion welcome!
Update: Just a few moments after posting I saw this great Bruce Schneier posting about the dynamics of privacy:
“So privacy for the government increases their power and increases the power imbalance between government and the people … Privacy for the people increases their power. It also increases liberty, because it reduces the power imbalance between government and the people.”
Update: I really like this initiative to create icons for privacy policies by the way.
Filed under: Privacy Tagged: | Anonymity, Privacy, Security, Tor
I think privacy has to be enforceable. Someone’s choice not to expose information can always be reversed, and in today’s corporations and government agencies, will be. Take the example of company X, which holds personally identifying information (PII), but chooses not to expose or sell it. If company Y buys company X, that information is now in play and privacy may be breached.
Phil Windley in Utah, USA, has had an intermittent discussion on his blog about a “personal information store” and the necessity for enforceable controls on the use of one’s PII to prevent any particular entity from accessing PII without the individual’s express permission or from using PII in ways broader than that permission. He’s looking at it from a speculative, future (ways to produce value) standpoint. But some of the concepts, in my opinion, are applicable today.
Thanks for the discussion. Your opinion is valued. Much of the confusion comes from the reality that laws and regulations have not caught up with digital realities. Discussions like these may inform the decisions our governmental leaders make in the process of catching up.
Thanks for that comment. The “VRM” movement in which people like Doc Searls participate also works to create mechanisms by which the levers of privacy can remain in the hands of the data subject.
I believe our future privacy depends in equal measure on technical innovations that leave the data subject in control of their data and on binding global legislation that backs up the expectation of privacy based on published policies with draconian consequences for a failure to honor those policies.
I’ve also suggested before that the data subject should retain the copyright on their personal data and be able to use all the legal sanctions corporations are creating to enforce copyrights to also enforce privacy. A sort of copyleft for personal data!