[PET] PET Digest, Vol 47, Issue 5

Gilad L. Rosner psxgr at nottingham.ac.uk
Mon Apr 23 09:16:19 BST 2012


Hi, everyone -

This discussion has been ongoing for at least 15 years. See:
Laudon, K. C. (1996). Markets and Privacy. /Communications of the ACM,/ 
/39/(9), 92-104.
Rule, J., & Hunter, L. (1999). Towards Property Rights in Personal Data. 
In C. J. Bennett & R. Grant (Eds.), /Visions of Privacy: Policy Choice 
for the Digital Age/ (pp. 168-181). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Samuelson, P. (2000). Privacy as Intellectual Property? /Stanford Law 
Review/, /52/, 1125-1174.

I found this one to be the most relevant:
Prins, C. (2006). When personal data, behavior and virtual identities 
become a commodity: Would a property approach matter? /SCRIPT-ed/, 
/3/(4), 270-303.

Prof. Prins writes:
"...personal data protection is not about something (i.e. personal data) 
that can be owned. It has everything to do with position, social  
ordering,  roles,  individual  status  and  freedom.  Therefore,  
protection  personal data  in  our  present-day  society  assumes  the  
capability  to  know  and  to  control  about typifying people. It 
requires the availability of instruments to enable awareness of the  
context  in  which  personal  data  are  used  and  to monitor  the  
data-impression  that individuals  are  exhibiting  to  others. In  
other  words,  the  discussion  on  the relationship  between  the  
public  domain  and  the  commodification  of  personal  data must  be  
a  discussion  on  whether,  and  to  what  extent,  the  statistical  
models,  profiles and  algorithms  that  are  used  to  generate  
knowledge about  our  individual  behavior, social  and  economic  
position,  as  well  as  personal  interests,  belong  in  the  public 
domain. The  commodification  of  our  identities  and  behavior  does  
not  need  a property rights debate with respect to individual and 
isolated personal data. It requires a  debate  on  the  role  of  the  
public  domain  in  providing  the  necessary  instruments  to know and 
to control the way in which our identities are made." (p.302)

Best regards,
Gilad



On 4/20/2012 12:00 PM, pet-request at lists.links.org wrote:
> Send PET mailing list submissions to
> 	pet at lists.links.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.links.org/mailman/listinfo/pet
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	pet-request at lists.links.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	pet-owner at lists.links.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of PET digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>     1. cognitive dissonance indeed (Wright, Matthew)
>     2. Re: cognitive dissonance indeed (Michael Rogers)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 10:53:18 -0500
> From: "Wright, Matthew"<mwright at uta.edu>
> To: Discussion of privacy enhancing technologies<pet at lists.links.org>
> Subject: [PET] cognitive dissonance indeed
> Message-ID:<D2FA4CC7-6253-434F-A079-F90FA63D9CEE at cse.uta.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Interesting article -- we just fought off attempts to censor the Internet in the US.
>
> Is the idea of owning one's data and enforcement of that through network protocols good for privacy? We can be sure that such a mechanism, if available, would be used for copyright enforcement. What affects would that have?
>
> The author argues that ownership of personal data is critical to privacy and goes from there.
>
> cheers-
> Matt
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/09/breaking_the_internet_no_property_no_privacy/
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:<http://lists.links.org/pipermail/pet/attachments/20120419/4ce89aa6/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:37:24 +0100
> From: Michael Rogers<michael at briarproject.org>
> To: Discussion of privacy enhancing technologies<pet at lists.links.org>
> Subject: Re: [PET] cognitive dissonance indeed
> Message-ID:<4F912E54.8040603 at briarproject.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi Matt,
>
> Daniel J. Solove makes a strong argument that viewing privacy as a
> property right fails to capture the kinds of power involved in control
> over personal information (especially when aggregated in databases), as
> opposed to control over possessions:
>
> "The value of one?s Social Security number lies not in its intimacy, not
> in its immediate revelations of selfhood, and not in the fact that the
> individual has authored it or given it special value. Rather, the value
> is in the power of this number over the individual; the ability it
> provides to others to gain power and control over an individual, to
> invade an individual?s private life, to make the individual vulnerable
> to fraud, identity theft, prying, snooping, and the like. Because this
> value is linked to uncertain future uses, it is difficult, if not
> impossible, for an individual to adequately value her information. Since
> the ownership model involves individuals relinquishing full title to the
> information, they have little idea how such information will be used
> when in the hands of others.
>       Furthermore, the aggregation problem severely complicates the
> valuation process. An individual may give out bits of information in
> different contexts, each transfer appearing innocuous. However, the
> information can be aggregated and could prove to be invasive of the
> private life when combined with other information. It is the totality of
> information about a person and how it is used that poses the greatest
> threat to privacy."
>
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=248300
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
> On 19/04/12 16:53, Wright, Matthew wrote:
>> Interesting article -- we just fought off attempts to censor the
>> Internet in the US.
>>
>> Is the idea of owning one's data and enforcement of that through network
>> protocols good for privacy? We can be sure that such a mechanism, if
>> available, would be used for copyright enforcement. What affects would
>> that have?
>>
>> The author argues that ownership of personal data is critical to privacy
>> and goes from there.
>>
>> cheers-
>> Matt
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/09/breaking_the_internet_no_property_no_privacy/
>>
>>
>

-- 

Gilad L. Rosner
PhD Candidate
Horizon Doctoral Training Centre
School of Computer Science
University of Nottingham

http://uk.linkedin.com/in/glrosner

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.links.org/pipermail/pet/attachments/20120423/4e5801ea/attachment.html>


More information about the PET mailing list