ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological issues relative to privacy.

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: John McClure <jmcclure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 12:30:58 -0800
Message-id: <52DD8782.6020006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hii Steve -
If I understand you correctly that there's a need for a global Secrets 
Repository, no I'm not going there. I am going more in the direction of 
identifying -- for RDF resources and properties of those resources -- 
ones 'privacy' expectations. Accountability occurs as a court of law 
levies penalties on those who do not respect the expectations 
communicated to them, per a civil suit having been brought. I'm 
envisioning these profiles placed in HTTP headers, in particular, so 
there is no question that the profiles have been sent to them in POST 
transactions. These are servers on a new privacy-oriented Internet 
(HTPP:) is the situation that seems most likely to me to emerge. A 
stand-along "Hypertext Privacy Protocol" is precisely the kind of 
'experimentation' that has been envisioned for the Internet to support, 
one that could be RDF-only. IOW I'm seeing little need to impose privacy 
processing on Youtube (ie GET transactions).    (01)

On 1/20/2014 5:58 AM, Steve Newcomb wrote:
>
> On 01/17/2014 06:46 PM, John McClure wrote:
>
>> 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).
> 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?)
>
> 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.
>
>   
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>       (02)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (03)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>