Before we get all the lawyers and regulators involved,
why not fix the relatively simple underlying privacy
issues in browsers?
Common sense from Cory Doctorow:
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/428045/the-curious-case-of-internet-privacy/
There's still room for improvement—and profit—in
code. A great deal of Internet-data harvesting
is the result of permissive defaults on how our
browsers handle cookies, those bits of code used to
track us. Right now, there are two ways to browse
the Web: turn cookies off altogether and live with
the fact that many sites won't work; or turn on all
cookies and accept the wholesale extraction of your
Internet use habits.
Browser vendors could take a stab at the
problem. For a precedent, recall what happened to
pop-up ads. When the Web was young, pop-ups were
everywhere. They'd appear in tiny windows that
re-spawned when you closed them. They ran away from
your cursor and auto-played music. Because pop-ups
were the only way to command a decent rate from
advertisers, the conventional wisdom was that no
browser vendor could afford to block pop-ups by
default, even though users hated them.
The deadlock was broken by Mozilla ...
Read the whole thing.
IMHO, the reason everyone is skipping over the obvious
"fix the privacy bugs" step is that we've been talking
about the problem the wrong way. HTTP actually works
backwards from the direction that most people describe
it when talking about privacy problems. More:
http://zgp.org/~dmarti/freedom/framing-privacy/
begin Mark Lizar quotation of Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:40:19PM +0100:
>
>
> Katherine,
>
> I think there is a strong legal case for Microsoft to pursue.
>
> On 8 Jun 2012, at 13:24, Katherine Warman Kern wrote:
>
> > But this case is the reverse. The status quo is opt out. There is no "Web Browser Protection Act" requiring opt-in.
> >
> > So who would take this to the Supreme Court and what law would the case rest on?
>
> if advertisers go around their default setting, Microsoft could take the issue to the supreme court and win as the supreme court has set a precedence of deciding for default 'opt-in' policy.
>
> Of course these are different circumstances, the salient point here is that default control of personal info (VRM) won't be illegal and it will likely be enforceable.
>
> It appears to me that Microsoft, is moving to more VRMy based on their next releases, but this does not mean it is VRM in the sense of personal control over data. Its a cloud strategy across global jurisdictions.
>
> I think DNT is a part of a bigger strategy which is fundamentally about big data.
>
> Found this quote from an article; Danah Boyd displaying the Microsoft perspective.
>
>
> On 6-Jun-12, at 10:39 PM, ama-gi ISPI wrote:
>
> > Microsoft's Danah Boyd assumes the solution will be regulation.
>
>
>
> > "Technologists need to re-engage with regulators. We need to get to a model
> > where we really understand [social media] usage." I'm sure she's right --
> > but there's a part that needs to be played by individuals, too.
> >
> > We need to understand that we are now living in the glare of big-data, and
> > that we can no longer vanish into the crowd. Analytics will become ever more
> > adept at extracting useful intelligence from our lives. Unwelcome though it
> > may be, we will be driven to consider how best to live in this endless
> > digital daylight.
>
>
> Regulation by itself, (without VRM) is too slow for next gen tech, it is a blunt instrument, but clearly not the complete answer,
>
> The- 'our privacy and security is lost, big data is inevitable' is bad propaganda. This type of dogma I would be extra weary of as its Microsoft policy, they are operating on the premise of creating this digital daylight. --> It appears that Do not Track is a surface issue of deeper market design for personal cloud services. AKA Big Data
>
> VRM, I would say, is different when it comes down to the way consent and control infrastructure has been viewed. It's is about how money is made.
>
> Microsoft has been working on the identity problem for a long time and bottom line makes a platform for the OS user, who pays for the product. The difference between chrome and IE is that Google's user doesnt pay for the product. (Google is your Data pimp)
>
> Microsoft knows that information control for their OS (not necessarily for people) is critical to their OS success. Which is still client server. Just like Google. All of this requires trust in order to make the best products.
>
> Bottom line personal information is cybercrack for companies. Microsoft wants the cybercrack infrastructure.
>
> DNT is a clear public policy move that sends a message to the advertising and regulatory industry, but is also a coy move intended to set a public policy standard for ad based web industry. Attacking the Google/Facebook revenue model)
>
> This is the new (personal) product. "Microsoft Private Cloud Solutions"
>
> With some predictions.
>
> 'Personal Cloud' to Replace PC by 2014, Says Gartner | Cloudline ...
> www.wired.com/cloudline/2012/03/personal-cloud-2014/
>
>
> Microsoft has spent enough money in legal fees to learn a lesson or two. Make no mistake DNT default is a business decision; They also know its going to take more than 'do not track' for the default setting to really mean something for the security of personal information.
>
> Hence The Microsoft Personal Device Cloud (does this sound familiar? e.g. personal data store) Its an identity management ecosystem built to be a data store for identity. The personal device cloud goes much further than do not track by (its a data minimization ecosystem for IDentity. ) But will it take off? And why? Who really benefits in the end? We will have to see.
> That being said, Incorporating data locker (VRM PDS) thinking into the device id-architecture so that it works peer to peer. Definitely a step in the right direction.
>
> - Mark
> www.identity-trust.com
>
> PS> DNT by default is a obvious privacy by design and is what is recommended to the industry. The ad industry setting public policy to a standard default as opt-in. (which is an evil precedent) is ludicrous. I am very disappointed with this wired article , (probably because wired is my favourite magazine) and this article seems like it was paid and written by the advertising industry lobby.
>
>
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.