On 01/17/2014 06:46 PM, John McClure wrote: (01)
> If an OPO (Ontolog Privacy Ontology) were created by which one specifies
> privacy expectations, and such is automagically transmitted in our
> digital communications, then there's a basic mechanism for establishing
> accountability, the bedrock notion of our social systems. As I see it,
> the problem is that there is no mechanism per se for people to state
> their privacy expectations about generic communications or about any
> specific communication or about any specific part of that communication
> or about any specific metadata relating to that communication (eg the
> keyboard was the input device for the communication). (02)
I think this idea (good) lies close to David Brin's *Transparent
Society* idea (also good). One of Brin's proposals is that a society
weary of noxious secrets, but aware that secrets are necessary for many
kinds of human endeavor, establishes a public registry of secrets. You
can have a secret, but only for a registered period of time. (Maybe
that's NSA's future?) (03)
Isn't something like that implicit, John, in your proposal? I don't see
how there can be accountability for the handling of information unless
the information itself is known to some sort of accountability
authority. And so such an authority would *still* need access to all
information transfers -- an idea none of us is comfortable with -- but
at least now it would have some direct and auditable accountability to
the owners of secrets *other* than the military. (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|