To: | "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | Ali H <asaegyn@xxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:13:03 -0500 |
Message-id: | <CADr70E0ij6TL_tgGK16wYi60_=XW4OYbjLZ1jUKPx_swx-Pj0g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Dear John,
I think it is possible to identify a core conception of privacy that is extended in various ways by different actors.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:15 PM, John Bottoms <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: All... At its core, a simple definition of privacy might be as follows:
One can then extend or justify the above according to myriad ethical, legal and democracy oriented appeals. For example, people who value human rights and perceive a connection between privacy and functioning democracies might argue that some level of privacy is a right bestowed upon living things (humans), and having spaces where you control access to signals you generate are vital to freedom of thought, _expression_ and exploration. Others might conceive of it as a commodity that individuals can monetize or engage in commercial transactions with. Obviously there are many interpretations and extensions given those set of considerations.
At a technical level though, it's worth pointing out that we're at a unique period in humanity's evolution. The intersection of:
This is certainly unprecedented in human history, and a very fundamental conception of privacy that we've taken for granted (arguable since humanity has ever existed) is potentially undermined. Coupled to this of course is that privacy (especially in the computer age) is not a very tangible right, it's loss is not necessarily immediately experiential, and there has been a re-normalization process underway as a side-effect of certain business and economic models that have been that have been enabled by at least two of the technological factors listed above. (A brief aside - a friend dressed as "the NSA" for halloween this year and walked around with a microphone and a recorder at a halloween party. Without fail, every person in each conversation he entered objected to his recording of the conversation, where conversely many people seem to take it for granted and do not object that some/many/all of their conversations are indeed recorded by some entity who is certainlynot necessarily their friend) We can further discriminate between two types of privacy interactions:
In the first instance, it's further important to note that the balance of power and information between the two parties is rarely equal. Google can easily change its terms or service or privacy policy, and your only recourse is to stop using the service. They can unilaterally alter the terms of engagement, you cannot. They have a team of legal or other paid staff to construct policies aligned with their strategic interests, you probably have neither the legal background nor time to fully read let alone understand the implications of such agreements.
In this context, the role of ontologists in the first instance might include:
In the latter instance, there are undoubtedly coupled political considerations, but some technological / computer-related opportunities might be to use ontologies in creating or enforcing more secure computing practices.
In both cases, as you note in bullet 1 below, there can be utility for ontologies in some degree of policy automation.
... I hope this is on topic. Best, Ali In the meantime commercial . (•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,.,
_________________________________________________________________ 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) |
Previous by Date: | [ontolog-forum] Ontological issues relative to privacy., John Bottoms |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological issues relative to privacy., Steve Newcomb |
Previous by Thread: | [ontolog-forum] Ontological issues relative to privacy., John Bottoms |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological issues relative to privacy., Steve Newcomb |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |