[PET] PET Digest, Vol 47, Issue 5

Wright, Matthew mwright at uta.edu
Mon Apr 23 18:54:22 BST 2012


Thank for the inputs.

Glad to know that my skepticism about the idea of privacy as a property right is shared by people who actually know what they're talking about and study this seriously.

-Matt

On Apr 23, 2012, at 3:16 AM, Gilad L. Rosner wrote:

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<mailto:pet-request at lists.links.org> wrote:

Send PET mailing list submissions to
        pet at lists.links.org<mailto: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<mailto:pet-request at lists.links.org>

You can reach the person managing the list at
        pet-owner at lists.links.org<mailto: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><mailto:mwright at uta.edu>
To: Discussion of privacy enhancing technologies <pet at lists.links.org><mailto:pet at lists.links.org>
Subject: [PET] cognitive dissonance indeed
Message-ID: <D2FA4CC7-6253-434F-A079-F90FA63D9CEE at cse.uta.edu><mailto: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><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><mailto:michael at briarproject.org>
To: Discussion of privacy enhancing technologies <pet at lists.links.org><mailto:pet at lists.links.org>
Subject: Re: [PET] cognitive dissonance indeed
Message-ID: <4F912E54.8040603 at briarproject.org><mailto: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

_______________________________________________
PET mailing list
PET at lists.links.org<mailto:PET at lists.links.org>
http://lists.links.org/mailman/listinfo/pet

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.links.org/pipermail/pet/attachments/20120423/a3e1e466/attachment.html>


More information about the PET mailing list