Nelson Mandela's "Ubuntu" is essentially human-ness, those traits
that distinguish us from animals. One of these certainly must be
privacy, derived from common performance of many bodily functions
(including digitized communications). Lower order animals we say
have no such expectations do they and we certainly accord animals
none. These 'rights' are not itemized in our Constitution -- it
would make the 2nd amendment quite banal. Do we have a right to
marry another? It's not in the Constitution, but surely we can agree
that we have that right. So the mere fact it is not spelled out
"legally" is hardly an impediment to the fact of its ontological
existence -- this is true of any non-substantial concept.
It may be Lawrence Lessig to whom you referred. Anyway, it is
conceivable to me the 'privacy' of digital communications is
addressable under copyright law, for I own all that I say.
Which brings to mind an ancient design for what is now HTTP that
identified ownership in vitro of each bit of digitized
communications.
/john
On 1/15/2014 1:22 PM, John Bottoms
wrote:
Duane,
I have not seen an ontology of privacy. There have been some
discussions about this issue that might be informative.
First, privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution as a right.
It has been argued that it is a derived right from other rights
mentioned including "...life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness." and "...freedom from search and seizure", (Fourth
amendment) but even then, there are limits to this freedom for
searches using warrants.
Yes, we do allegedly give up rights with Terms
of Agreement. However, there is a professor at Harvard who
argues that TOA's are not valid contracts in that they are not
arrived at as an agreement between equal parties. I don't think
this has been tested in court.
If I had to write an ontology for privacy I would attempt to do
it as a reflection of a contractual agreement, in that privacy
is something owed to me, either as a citizen or as derived from
the Constitution. I don't think it can appear "vero eos et auras"
(out of thin air) from living in a democracy.
That is, I don't see it as a right imbued by having residence
within the borders of the U.S.
While we are at it, I have been working on "roles" and have been
considering the term "imbued". It came up during a movie I was
watching. The bad guy was wondering "Is this Kaley's room? It
seems odd that that the room has 'Kaley' assigned to it." It
sounded like he was wondering if a room, a non-agent, can have a
role assigned to it. I decided that whatever it was, to be
"imbued" is to have others recognize that the room is assigned
to a certain person, in this case "Kaley". It clearly comes off
as one of Austen's Speech Acts such as christening a ship. It is
an assignment that is recognized by a group of people and is
logged in a registry of ship names, just as the members of the
(Firefly) ship recognizes the room as Kaley's.
Likewise, I think privacy is something that is culturally
recognized by groups of people. Even as children, before we have
any notion of contracts or law, we recognize that we need
privacy. And the courts should recognize this innate need. They
already award anonymity to investors who establish corporations,
so shouldn't individuals be able to claim this same privilege?
-John Bottoms
FirstStar System
Concord, MA USA
On 1/15/2014 3:13 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 1/15/14 2:51 PM, Duane Nickull
wrote:
It is an invasion of privacy if you do not consent to
have your data used as such. In most cases, people
willingly signed over those rights. Check the ToS on
Facebook for example.
Secondly, opting in is not the issue, opting out is.
There is also the concept of context and traverse
ability. I may have your weight recorded but in a manner
where it is not directly attributable to you without further
correlation. Cookies are a good example of this.
Duane Nickull
***********************************
Technoracle Advanced Systems Inc.
Consulting and Contracting; Proven Results!
i. Neo4J, PDF, Java, LiveCycle ES, Flex, AIR, CQ5
& Mobile
t. @duanenickull
+1
Privacy is self-calibration of one's vulnerability on or
offline.
"You" not "Them" decide to lock your front-door at night, for
instance.
Any situation in which "You" aren't the calibrator of "Your"
vulnerability is an invasion of privacy.
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
|
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (01)
|