On Tue, 6 Jan 2015, Crosbie Fitch wrote:
And yes, as you observe, the misadventure is 'DRM for personal data'.
OK, phew, I am always on treacherous ground when trying something like that, glad it connected.
Would you concede, then, that there is a difference between attempting to build:
a) systems that hard-code DRM-personal-data principles in algorithm and promise it's unbreakable
versus
b) systems that use a combination of default settings, contract law, and consensus to achieve some personal-data protection
The former may be both folly and immoral and right to oppose; but the latter seems permissable, let me illustrate with your example:
It is difficult to argue with those with unshakeable faith in the
impossible, that I can be told Fred's favourite colour and be subsequently
constrained by Fred (or some system) as to who I can or cannot disclose it
to, moreover that even those to whom I am authorised to disclose it, are
similarly constrained.
Let's posit this differently, to be more like the systems usually discussed here. Let's say I was willing to tell you Fred's favorite color, but ONLY on the condition that you not disclose it to anyone else, and on the condition that you delete that data if I ask you to, with cash penalties in case you violate that. You willingly agree because, for whatever reason, you want to know Fred's favorite color.
No natural law prevents you from violating that contract. No technology barrier is likely to keep the most detemined of technologists from being able to share that. Granted.
But that's not the end of the story, it's not mere "sloppy thinking" to think that a contract may be sufficient to compell the appropriate behavior in enough cases to be worthwhile.
Likewise, the rise of "the right to be forgotten" brings along a lot of thorny questions and edge cases which scream for first principles - and the first principle that if I possess information in my personal hands/devices there's nothing you should be able to do to delete it, is very persuasive.
If the understanding of what a right was hadn't been forgotten people would readily recognise that there is no such thing as a 'right to be forgotten'.
Ha, good pun. But yeah, I wasn't defending any such "right". What I was suggesting was that sometimes what people want is often more complicated than can be answered by first principles - which doesn't make it wrong, just more complicated.
VRM facilities can be produced entirely with software alone.
A sign that things have gone astray is a claim that something else is
needed, e.g. a law.
I submit this may be the actual bone of contention - is this list limited to discussing solutions that are only software in nature, or are solutions that are a mix of software, law (contract or otherwise), business, etc. Seems like there are few which are strictly about software. It's a straw man to evaluate these hybrid solutions on the basis of whether only the software component will work alone.
VRM should attempt to make it easier for people to communicate, to trade, to
collect and share data as a consequence of their trades, not to make it
harder.
Unfortunately, it looks like the latter is the more popular direction.
Could you be more specific about the kinds of VRM projects you see, or think should exist, that are purely about the above?
One example I remember giving Doc when we first discussed VRM was a mail client plug-in that parsed receipts from the major retailers (Amazon, etc) and built a client-side database of everything you buy, as an inventory tracker, insurance database, and even warranty clearing house; sort of a client-side equivalent of Tripit. Then from there you might be able to reasonably build an intentcasting system that first went to the retailers you have shopped from in the past. Hell, maybe Tripit is a VRM company.
Are you working on anything along these lines or others? Because an implementation in hand is worth a thousand on the list.
Brian
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.