ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: John McClure <jmcclure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 07:43:16 -0800
Message-id: <52DE9594.3010809@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Forget this criminal stuff, but focus instead on 'trust' processing that 
surely plays a major part in this context. Civil suits of the non-class 
action variety are not likely, but accountability should at least occur 
with "trust ratings", I suspect in a more operative way than court 
actions provide the public.    (01)

On 1/21/2014 5:56 AM, Steve Newcomb wrote:
>
> On 01/20/2014 03:30 PM, John McClure wrote:
>> 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.
> The problem with that idea is that privacy will remain the exclusive
> province of those with the wealth necessary to defend it.  Nobody else
> will get to have secrets, so their info can be exploited by the wealthy
> with impunity.  Also, all *successful* civil suits must demonstrate
> *significant* damage to the plaintiff.  I wonder how one could do that.
>   Perhaps you're thinking of making a cottage industry for lawyers who
> bring class actions against bad actors who are large and wealthy.  That
> seems a suboptimal solution to me; it creates a whole new estate, with
> all the attendant legal and social complexity, and it doesn't work
> against bad actors who lack the necessary vulnerabilities (wealth under
> purview of the State).
>
> If we really want some semblance of privacy, criminal law is simpler to
> administer, less costly for the economy, more universally effective,
> and, I would argue, far more creatively disruptive, because it protects
> the economy's weakest seedlings.  From the perspective of long-term
> national prosperity, creative disruption is essential.  It requires a
> level playing field, not one that's heavily weighted in favor of the
> existing establishment.
>
>
>   
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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>