Privacilla-Open Source Privacy Policy Making? 33
sonnerbob asks: "There was this article at Wired (which I'm sure has already been submitted), but what I found most interesting was the reference to Privacilla.Org which intends to 'loosely follow the open source software development model described by Eric Raymond.' Since I do subscribe in large part to 'free market liberalism', the principles of the Cato Institute, and try to convey as much at WebVeil.Com, I would like to read the comments from Slashdotters, both on the open source approach and the angle on the privacy issue itself."
I object to being linked to libertarians ... again (Score:2)
I'm sick of it. Libertarians are the fringe of politics and for good reason. Libertarians are NOT the friends of open source, and we would do well to steer clear of them.
Civil society improves the lot of the average peasant. Secular humanism improves the lot of oppressed non-Christians everywhere. Governments are good for society, as it allows society to flourish without fear from random uprisings or internecine civil warfare. An open, democratic society is demonstrably better than being in a despotic state (see Burma) or a lawless state (see Indonesia, a raft of sub-Saharan african nations such). You get one the best forms of democratic state via the use of the Westminster system, where church and state are separated. Examples are the US, England, Australia, and New Zealand. Very similar democracies exist in most European countries as well.
What does libertarians wish? Really dang small government, where the government is cast as the evil doer. The libertarian extremists wish us all to be armed to be teeth to protect ourselves from the nuts next door (as well as the guv'mint) because under their model, there is no government to interfere in their "right" to do whatever they damn well please.
Anyway, if there really was dang small government, there would be really big business. Can you imagine what would happen to what might have been the Internet? It would be expensive (recall Compu$erve). It would be proprietary (recall Compu$erve). Linux wouldn't be anywhere because the government would have let a DCMA style bill pass much before now so IBM's MCA bus would have succeeded, and we would all be paying IBM tax and not Microsoft tax on our new PC's. So remember, libertarians are NOT your friends.
This is all so far from actually doing any coding of any sort that I wish places like slashdot (where it is co-joined all too regularly) would drop these little nuggets of crap in
harumpf.
Look at who's behind privacilla.org... (Score:2)
Given the selection of organizations supporting privicilla (where DID he ge that name?), it's clear Harper is more concerned with building a bureaucratic structure to financially support him - moreso than acheive anything substantive. He is the principal at http://www.policycounsel.com/ which is another store-front lobbying consulting firm, of which another 20 or 30 will pop up here in DC over the next few months as staffers to elected officials and political appointees find themselves without a job after November (I live and work in DC and have seen this more than a few times).
Given the conservative nature of the organizations supporting Privacilla (which according to the website do not include Cato) it seems curious - these are the same folks who would support censorship on the web, support Microsoft's closed-source business model, and don't really care which way the privacy thing goes, as long as their making money. I find it ironic that he wants to follow some "open-source" model for his project - given that the organizations that support him don't support open source....?
A brief history of privacy and an opinion (Score:1)
But at first, merely drawing my fist back (or nocking an arrow, drawing a dagger, etc) was not considered a crime. Later law decided that if I act in a way towards you that would put a reasonable person in fear of harm, then I have committed the crime of assault. Note the introduction of the "legal value of sensations."
But these two laws still only relate to physical harm. What if I tell lies about you in the marketplace, and ruin your reputation and ability to earn a living? To fix this bug, new law was developed to define the crime of libel. Over the years, libel was even extended to cover the general notion of a reputation, though it can still be hard to prove non-financial harm. Note the introduction of an informational crime.
But what if I can harm you by telling the truth about you? Maybe by revealing some medical information, or something about a minor crime you committed as a kid, or an embarrassing thing you once bought, or publishing your private diary, etc.
Well, society is still struggling with that one. The modern notion of privacy was articulated by Warren and Brandeis [louisville.edu] who saw civil society protecting a fundamental "right to be let alone" and occasionally acknowledging that additional components of that right were in need of protection.
Thus the right to privacy derives from a trend over many hundreds of years of common law. Obviously, your privacy can be invaded by either governments, corporations, or individuals. The question is: what forms of protection do you need against which actors?
The web site referred to, privacilla.org, is funded by a group of economic libertarian organizations. In general, these people see a need for governmental protection against physical and financial harm. But they're not too big on recognition of other forms of harm. So their arguments assume that financial harm is the major thing to protect against, and that it can be traded off against financial benefit.
Personally, I can see other harms to the individual and society, especially in an information intensive society, and these harms don't seem to interest the economic libertarians. For example, some sexual and religious and political activities and affiliations become very unpopular in society from time to time. If people live under the constant threat that their affiliations and predilictions might be exposed, many will simply be too fearful to exercise their supposed freedoms.
Personally, I want to extend peoples' freedom to think and do, not restrict it, and I think laws that define and recognize an individual's right to privacy are an excellent step in that direction. I think an ideal model for such laws is the Fair Information Practices:
1. There must be no personal data record-keeping systems whose very existence is secret.
2. There must be a way for an individual to find out what information about him is on record and how it is used.
3. There must be a way for an individual to correct or amend a record of identifiable information about him.
4. There must be a way for an individual to prevent information about him that was obtained for one purpose from being used or made available for other purposes without his consent.
5. Any organization creating, maintaining, using, or disseminating records of identifiable personal data must guarantee the reliability of the data for their intended use and must take precautions to prevent misuse of the data.
These principles were incorporated into U.S. law in the Privacy Act of 1974, which required the Federal government to obey them. they were also adopted in 1980 in a treaty [eu.int] by the Council of Europe and have become law governing both governments and private organizations in European Union countries.
So the Fair Information Practices Priciples aren't exactly new and untested. I think the next thing we should do in the U.S. is pass laws requiring that corporations and state governments also follow the Fair Information Practices. Thanks for listening.
Lee Campbell
Often in error, never in doubt!
Re:I object to being linked to libertarians ... ag (Score:2)
I am *too* the friend of open source. I resent your assertion that I'm not. I've been running an open source business for 9 years now. Check out my web site to see the free software activities that I support.
I have nothing but contempt for anyone who says I don't work hard enough for open source.
where church and state are separated.
I just want a system where state and economy are separated. The government can be as big as it wants, as long as it keeps its nose out of what I buy and sell.
the [libertarian] government would have let a DCMA style bill
Nope. No libertarian government would pass such a fascist bill. I wonder if you understand what you are criticizing?
-russ
Open Source Privacy (Score:3)
The solution to privacy has finally been found! We've all suspected for a long time that open source is that answer to everything, and here is the proof.
What we need to do is all open up our privacy! There is too much privacy hoarding in this society. After all, more eyes mean shallow bugs in your life.
After all, we know there is no such thing as intellectual property, and what is privacy except personal intellectual property?
Think of the benefits! You may like your shaving cream, but that's just because you haven't had the benefit of open source privacy. There would be legions of helpful people that would help you fix that bug by letting you know of better shaving cream solutions... for free!
The solution has been under our nose for years. Slashdot can now retire the privacy categories.
--
Vapour Asks : (Score:3)
from the stuff-to-talk-about dept.
Vapour [webveil.com] asks: "There was this article [wired.com] at Wired [wired.com] (which was dull the first time), and I found that it provided an incredible opportunity to post a dull privacy story on Slashdot. This random linkPrivacilla.Org [privacilla.org] allows me some semblance of intelligence, which moderators love, indeed, here is another
< CmdrTaco And Hemos Speaking At MIT Thurs [slashdot.org] | Mozilla-KDE Integration [slashdot.org] >
vapour
..
.
Balance needed (Score:2)
People will fill in contest entries, credit card applications, and survey forms (electronic or otherwise) without even thinking about the privacy issues - but then they'll scream when they get personalised junk mail...
Now the darker end of the spectrum is what bothers me - when someone like your doctor gives out information about you... and it happens. Ask around to anyone you know that's had a baby recently - have they received any 'special offers' in the mail for baby needs? How about telemarketers targetted for the same thing? It happens - the worst I've heard involved a couple who lost their baby only days after it was born... the mail and telemarketers where a constant reminder...
Re:Balance needed (Score:1)
YALTTISR (Score:2)
Privacilla's primary argument and probably its whole raison d'etre is to argue that privacy is not really a concern when personal information is placed in the hands of businesses, and that only government infringments are dangerous to the public.
This ignores simple reality - I use a simple system of pseudonyms to judge which of my online transactions are leaked for cash, and in all cases so far, a business has been the culprit. Especially major businesses like CNN.com and bn.com, although it sometimes is difficult to decide whether the leak was intentional or an inadvertant loss to some cracker. According to Privacilla, these are the merchants who supposedly will be checked by market forces.
The problem with this fine theory is that the majority of users put no forethought into tagging their transactions and thus they have no means of pegging loss of privacy on any culprit. After all, my name, address, and telephone number are always the same, irrespective of who leaks them.
I simply don't trust market forces or any other "invisible hand" to keep my data private. So far no such thing has worked for me or the majority of people online. Otherwise, why would it be an issue? For a real solution to this problem (albeit an expensive one) consider Zero Knowledge [zeroknowledge.com], which offers pseudonyms and dual-anonymizing proxies while on the web.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Some valid points... (Score:2)
The problem is, I'm not so certain we have any other choice. Anyone who thinks businesses will self-regulate privacy concerns is truly naive. Ther can sell the information (thereby increasing profits) or use it to target their advertising (thereby reducing marketing costs). And in the end, that's all any business wants to do. It's the nature of the beast; sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad. In this case, I'd say, it's pretty damn bad. Sure, businesses shouldn't be hindered unduly in their relentless pursuit of The Almighty Buck, but the rights of the people to determine their own levels of privacy far outweigh the rights of a corporation to target their ads.
Given that businesses won't regulate privacy, and citizens don't, as a rule, have the clout to make them do it, I'm not so sure we have any choice but to bring the government into it. I can't say it's a particularly desirable choice, but if we want to keep our privacy I doubt there's any alternative. Even if you can keep your information to yourself for now, that will change eventually if nothing is done about it.
What I'd like to see come out of this, though, is a privacy amendment to the Constitution; quite possibly the only thing the Framers seem to have overlooked. Personally, I would word it something like this:
How's it sound? Opinions? Suggestions for refinement?
----------
Re:Cato finally gives up the pretence (Score:3)
However, I've seen too many posts like this not to reply.
So your personal information is your property? Like your adress, meat or online? Like your name? Like your hair color? Exactly how do you propose we enforce this? In your ideal world there would be no communication, since I cannot contact you without seeking your permission. And I can't get that permission since I can't contact you. There we sit shivering in two separate caves unaware that there is that thing called "fire" that we could use for warmth. We never heard of it, since the guy who discovered it wanted to respect our privacy.
In this world you must give up some of that sacred privacy, or be left alone. Oh yes I forgot, you want to be left alone! Because if people knew where you were, some evil corporation might abuse that knowledge!
For every piece of information, as well as for every piece of physical good, there is use and abuse. You restrict access to that information and expect only the abuse to be affected. (if you could, it would mean that the RIAA et al are right)
Of course the line must be drawn somewhere. I don't want my medical data available. In those cases the damage of abuse outweighs the gain of fair use. The rule is that everything that is not said in strict confidence must be considered public knowledge.
Bless the fair use, deal with the abuse, get a life!
Re:Balance needed (Score:1)
It's my personal information. I'm allowed to give away and sell my passport to the mafia.
I'll always scream when I get personalised junkmail as I don't want people to know I wear pink frilly panties (like a girl). I never gave them permission to use my profile that way.
If companies were honest that they plan to sell my details I wouldn't enter their contests. But a pile of Rudger Hower "Blind Fury" postcards is just too tempting.
Hoo-boy (Score:1)
I'm fed up with all of these "free-market" neo-liberals whining that "if only the gov't quite meddling, we all could live better lives full of freedom and liberty."
Here's what they really mean:
"If we had the gov't out of the way (we already have the people out of the way), we could exploit labor, the environment, perople's privacy (even more than we do now) other countries, etc.. way more than we do now for wayyyyy more money, and get away with it more than we do now."
FACE IT PEOPLE, BUSINESS IS MORE OF AN ENEMY TO THE AVERAGE JOE THAN THE GOVERNMENT - they are smarter and have even less of a conscience towards mankind.
Business knows its them against us, that they're winning, and that they need to do everything in their power to keep their power, since in reality it's people that hand power over to them on a silver platter.
We've given it to them, and we'll have to take it back if we want it. Otherwise, expect to see people tattooed with sponsors' logos when they're born in 50 years so the parents can afford the hospital bills! How's that for privacy?Cato finally gives up the pretence (Score:3)
Any sensible libertarian would realise that my information, about me, is my property, and that it is the proper role of the government to protect my property rights in that information. If I want to sell it to a business, then that's my right, but I sell it under the terms I want, and I don't for example, want to licence them to sell it on to other businesses. Nor do I want my contract with them to be invalidated by their insolvency (no other kind of contract is)
Basically, there is no "fair use" when it comes to my individual information -- unless someone wants to critique my surname, or satirise my telephone number. Nor is there "first sale", because this information isn't copyrighted. It isn't patented. It's just owned. By me. And the law doesn't recognise that.
The Cato Institute wants to prevent me from defending my property against the big banks and companies that pay its bills. This isn't the first time they've been caught out on a personal liberty issue like this. Screw them and their silly strawman "government is worse" arguments. They're not libertarians; they;re corporatarians. If the word "liberty" could be trademarked, they'd be in breach.
And I hope no "information wants to be free" types are fooled by them.
Slightly unsettling... (Score:1)
The text of any page on this site (and the page source too, if you want it) is subject to a public license called the Privacilla Public License. Anyone may take material from this website and use it, modified or verbatim, with the single caveat that any material based on this work also must be subject to the Privacilla Public License. Anyone may post material from this site on their own sites, link to this site, copy the content into letters or e-mails, or direct policymakers to view this site.
The Privacilla Public License contains terms that differ from the Mozilla Public License and the Netscape Public License. Please use caution when taking material from the Privacilla site. It opens pages from other websites within its frames. These pages are not subject to the Privacilla Public License.
This seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen. If something is included within the frames of the Privacilla website, especially if it has been linked by the Privacilla maintainers themselves, it should be in accordance with the Privacilla Public License. It shouldn't be left up to the user whether or not material linked within a site's frames is actually from that site, and thus subject to the PPL.
Of course, I may have mis-interpreted what the above paragraphs meant. I've had trouble muddling through licenses in the past...
Re:Cato finally gives up the pretence (Score:2)
Strawman. This problem, like so many other "online" issues, is obviously analogous to one in traditional property law, which has been solved to everyone's satisfaction.
I hope it can be agreed that the route from the pavement to my front door is my property. But anyone who wants to call on me, and who I have not specifically requested not to, is assumed to have my permission to ring on my doorbell. So it is with email addresses, etc, etc. But if I choose to become a hermit and not allow anyone to contact me, I have that right.
For every piece of information, as well as for every piece of physical good, there is use and abuse. You restrict access to that information and expect only the abuse to be affected.
No, I want to allow every natural individual to decide where they, as individuals, want to draw the line when it comes to public access to their private property. Some people are happy for the neighbourhood softball league to practice in their field, or for the local kids to pick apples off their trees. Some people declare that they will meet all intrusion with deadly force. I want to be able to control what access people have to the online equivalent, and I expect the government I pay for to give me the legal tools I require to enforce my rights
if you could, it would mean that the RIAA et al are right
Maybe they are right. In any case, whether they are or not makes no difference to the question of whether my identity (which is not a creative work) is my property (which it is; it's part of me).
Ah this streetlawyer. One is seldom sure wether he is trolling or not...
So you have to respond to what he actually said, rather than just pigeonholing his arguments and firing off a boilerplate Slashbot auto-reply. How terrible for you. How terrible for you all.
Big Brother is Watching You (Score:1)
This is funny because if you start to think about the tracks you leave behind all what you do (cash machines, cellphones, stores, polls, to give only a few examples), some openly privacy violation will not harm the entire humankind.
The fact is that while done "undercover", privacy violation doesn't raise the masses as much as the announcement that the NSA recognize checking the mailboxes of the whole planet...
The failure of "self-regulation" (Score:2)
What has happened instead is thatt some people have discovered that it's to their benefit to share information about themselves. Some privacy advocates forget that there can be benefits to disclosing information about yourself. The real question here is not whether private information is being shared. The question is: did you give this information willingly, and were you compensated for it.
If you were compensated for telling people about yourself, then stop whining about how "self-regulation" has failed, because the "self" is *your*self. And there's no way a government can save your from your own mistakes.
-russ
Re:privacy is a consumer only issue (Score:1)
You can say that people should take care and block cookies and web-bugs and the like. I think they should, too. However there is some limit to what an individual can check themself. Do you analyze the water out of your tap every week? Check to see if that soda doesn't have something nasty in it? Your new monitor gave you a free daily dose of X-rays, and now you have cancer? Tough, you should have checked it before buying it.
I think that the governments role is not to state what can and can not be capture/included in a product/what every, but to require disclosure of such information. If I know a Web site is (attempting to) collect my Email address, or that the soft drink has 0.1% benzoic acid in it, maybe it's OK by me. But at least I have the information to make the decision - if it's not on the label I can't do so.
Swinging attitudes (Score:2)
Well, it seems there is going to be two main outcomes:
-the government step in and assure its citizens their privacy is safe in its hand. Eventually abuses and scandals happen, public's interest is on, the law is changed to take away some of this power and to let the actors manage themselves.
-free market let the different actors decide for themselves. Abuses and scandals happen, public's interest is on, the companies or individuals involved get bad publicity, lose money and change their policies. If this happen a lot, laws are made to handle some of the recurrent problems.
From -my- libertarian POV, I go for the second solution (I generally prefer a contract than a law), it requires me to be critical about who I trust with my personal information, it gives me the freedom to not care or to be retentive.
But in both cases, there is going to be a swinging pendulum between laissez-faire and regulations, its energy coming from public's awareness.
Look, all I want... (Score:3)
That means, to be allowed, legally, to use junkbuster, deserialize my CueCat, refuse (or falsify) my name and address at RadioShack, buy a Tivo (or similar) and never use the service, etc. without bringing down the goon squad.
What I'm worried about is a future in which I'm prohibited by law from taking these measures. we're already half-way there with the DMCA, causing me to swear off movies, TV, and music (which is saving me beaucoup $$$ and time - I doubt I'll ever consume that crap again). I see a day coming when I'll be requred by law to personally identify myself to every website I visit, thanks to some poorly-written "privacy" legislation, wherin circumventing P3P (by not storing all my correct personal info in my browser) will be a crime, or somesuch.
-Isaac
Australian experience of privacy policy (Score:1)
This act basically states that personal information shall not be collected unless the information is (a) collected for a purpose that is a lawful purpose directly related to a function or activity of the collector, and (b) the collection of the information is necessary for or directly related to that purpose.
The information collected is generally not allow to be used for any other means. Also, the individual must also be made aware of the purpose for which the information is being collected, to which external parties that information may be disclosed to, and should be allowed access to the records.
(http://www.privacy.gov.au/publications/ipps.ht
Ealier this year an ammendment was introduced to expand the reach of the act to cover private sector organisations, and to include more types of private information (health in particular). In drafting the ammendment the government considered the "global information economy" as well as existing privacy laws worldwide (particularly Europe). Take a look at http://www.law.gov.au/privacy/InformationPaper.ht
Of course this only applies to Australian organisations, at this stage it offers no real protection of data provided to say a company in the US. Increasingly if you are concerned about your own privacy you not only have to consider what goes on in your own country, but what laws/protections exist worldwide. Like so many other current issues you really need to take a global view.
Ten years from now..... (Score:1)
Actually, it is that world NOW, it's just that people are more "in touch with their feelings" today than they will be in the future (where emotions outside of greed will be bred out of the species.)
By the time the free-marketeers realize the Faustian bargain they've struck with Gold-inlaid Faucet Crowd, they'll be scrubbing the bowls and polishing the fixtures, all the time looking forward to James Caan's blood being splashed on their clothes on Friday night.
As Dick said, The Empire Never Ended.
Now I understand it. (Score:2)
So, when do we get our first 'killa' application?
WARNING: int-property is not free market (Score:2)
After all, if the govt went regulating the natural supply and demand of oranges, every free market advocate would see it for waht it is - a farce. But if they start regulating the free flow of information, and give it a fancy name like intellectual-property - then wala, it's a God given right.
(ya know, 2 million Americans died in a war partly to proove that just because a government calls something a property right, does not mean that it is, I digress)
"privacilla" is a misleading name (Score:2)
Re:Now I understand it. (Score:1)
How true...and it's a shame that Raquel Welch was never fully credited with her pioneering effort in the open source movement since Barbarella [badmovies.org] did not accurately predict this naming convention.
Re:Cato finally gives up the pretence (Score:2)
Sure, fine by me. The issue is really what the default should be. If I walk up to your door and see no sign saying either "hermit residence keep out" or "Come in, come in whoever you are" What should I expect?
The consensus of our society is that unless anything else is specified, I may walk straight to your door and ring the doorbell. If you do not answer it may or may not be considered OK to have a look on the back of your house, depending on where you live. If you tell me to go away I shoud do that, if you are not at home I should leave, perhaps dropping a note.
If you have a mailbox I assume it is OK to put mail in it. If you print your e-mail adress I assume it is OK to use it.
If you want to be a hermit, *you* are responsible for letting everyone know that you don't want any contact. Not because you "don't have the right to privacy" but because most people are not hermits and everyone assumes that if you don't state any preferences you want to be treated like everyone else.
Your name and adress might be considered your private property. The *information* about your name and adress can not. "Information wants to be free" is used to death, but in this case it is true. You can not keep the information of your existence to yourself (not really). You are, however, entitled to the amount of privacy of your choice *despite* the fact that your existence is public knowledge. (to the extent of the law)
I want to allow every natural individual to decide where they, as individuals, want to draw the line when it comes to public access to their private property.
So do I. As I said, the question is what I should consider default.
So you have to respond to what he actually said, rather than just pigeonholing his arguments and firing off a boilerplate Slashbot auto-reply. How terrible for you. How terrible for you all.
Since my post could be considered to be against absolute privacy, it hardly qualifies as a slashbot response, does it?
Anyway, that one can't tell your trolling from sincere posts is IMHO a good thing...
Re:Cato finally gives up the pretence (Score:1)
This is not an all or nothing proposition. Property is not an absolute, even when discussing the same "thing". It is more circumstantial and dictated by the social and economic relationships specific to the situation.
When an individual has an economic interest in me and my personal information, that individual's access to my personal information should be regulated. When there is no economic interest and their communication is well intentioned, then it should be unregulated.
We do not allow threatening and harassing communication. We should not allow it just because someone is being employed by this communication.These privacy issues highlight the power of organizing. On one side we have huge organized blocks, corporations, with an overwhelming economic argument for collecting personal information. On the other side there are scattered voices that occasionaly voice their distress with respect to the situation. This is a variation on what is known as the tragedy of the commons. There is not any single entity that can effectively counter the accumulated economic interest of the corporation or corporations. This makes it difficult to have personal privacy come out on top even if the accumulated personal economic interest of private individuals would outweigh the accumulated economic interest of the corporations.
The only effective broker for the accumulation of personal economic interest in privacy at this time is the government. The regulations do not have to be overly restrictive. We could start out slow, with fuller disclosure regarding privacy policies of organizations. Perhaps an accompanying temporary moratorium on linking user behavior with user identity. And greater regulation of SS# usage.
I don't have the answers but it is naive to deny there is a problem.
Privacilla.org clueless about hypertext (Score:2)
Also, someone needs to tell them that using the same META keyword five times makes search engines tag you as a spammer.
The content is stuff we've all seen before, too.
Re:Some valid points... (Score:1)
Why are Americans so government-phobic ?
How many of you have felt restricted in their individual freedoms, because some Joe has thrown out all common sense and wants to fight to death for your "right to do anything you want" ?
How many people in the world would be grateful, if they had a government, which would protect them better and have none, which does.
You have a government, which could protect you fairly, but for some reason you think it wouldn't. Why ? What's so dangerous about your government ?
Re:Cato finally gives up the pretence (Score:2)
No
The individuals (or corporations) *use* of that data should be regulated.
Furthermore, the spreading of information that is potentially harmful to me as an individual should be regulated.
I don't mind if Visa has extensive info about my buying habits as long as they keep it to themselves I wouldn't mind if my mail adress was common knowledge if I didn't get spammed as a consequence
Some people seem to think that the proverbial cat will go back into the bag simply because it is my cat. Exactly the same reasoning the media giants use. Fredom of information can be turned against you just as easily as it can be turned against Universal.
Re:Cato finally gives up the pretence (Score:1)
Crap. Information cannot be owned in the same sense as material objects. If you want to treat your personal info as property I suggest you trademark it. Make all the other John Saul Montoyas pay you a royalty to use your name, the thieving bastards.