Re: [projectvrm] Corporations cannot be discreet nor can they be trusted - they ar e not human beings

[William Heath < >]

Indeed Doc. It is a key distinction, sometimes overlooked.     William

On 7 September 2012 17:04, Doc Searls < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

FWIW, there are companies on this list that keep data for individuals, but in an encrypted form for which only the user (or customer) has the key.

But, in those cases, the companies have no interest in personal data itself, but rather only in providing other services.

Not sure this is relevant, but it is interesting, methinks.

Doc

On Sep 7, 2012, at 9:16 AM, "Crosbie Fitch" < "> > wrote:

> Corporations cannot even keep data secret today - data that it is in their
> interest to keep secret. I don't know how one can imagine that data they are
> interested in sharing can be kept secret by having them tick a box saying
> "Bloggs Inc. agrees not to share or disclose this data to any party aside
> from its trusted parents, subsidiaries, partners, and affiliates".
>
> Trying to create a system that prevents or even inhibits unauthorised
> disclosure of personal data is a pursuit of the holy grail. Corporations and
> people will communicate whatever it is in their interest to communicate.
> People can be trusted to be discreet because it is in their interest to be
> discreet (they are at liberty not to be discreet), but corporations cannot
> be trusted, and 'discretion' is a label you can attach to their cost/benefit
> analysis of non-disclosure vs discovery of disclosure.
>
> As for systems that provide information concerning participant identity and
> reputation (even reputation for discretion), I think these are eminently
> feasible, worthy and useful, even indispensible.
>
> Bear in mind that reputation becomes extremely valuable. You do not need to
> pretend coercion (penalties for disobedience) by the law, nor attempt to
> assure compliance via contract. Loss of reputation is quite sufficient. See
> for example on eBay just how important a high reputation metric is to
> vendors (though it is pretty crude).
>
> Trade needs only identity/reputation - from which traders
> (human/corporate/virtual/robot) can obtain a degree of confidence in those
> they trade with (without needing to know which human or corporation they are
> controlled by).
>
> For a human being to trust an identity, they need assurance it corresponds
> with a human being.
>
> States and corporations may 'desire' that they can establish which human
> beings correspond with which identities, but this isn't necessary. Though,
> because they 'desire' it so strongly they will want everyone to use their
> identity/reputation systems that build-in body/identity correspondence at
> the outset.

--

+ 44 7973 115024