> I was rather expecting that you would have read the sources before responding.
My apologies, Graham. For me, statements like "It is not as though [privacy] is a human right!" cast a long shadow of doubt on the credibility of anything else in the same post. Since the claim made is false on its face, any evidence presented to support it has either been misconstrued or else was used appropriately but is similarly disposable. Hence, TL;DR.
Also, the sources quoted cannot inform the discussion when there is no discussion to be had. My problem with tracking and data brokerage has always been the sense of entitlement proponents claim for these practices. Privacy *is* an entitlement according to the UN and all its member countries. The burden of protecting that privacy is imposed on holders of Personal Data as a means of ensuring that right of privacy. The collection, aggregation, correlation, matching and refining of personal data by corporations, is not an entitlement.
I consider these to be settled facts. In that context, claims to the contrary stop any discussion in its tracks. We have no common ground so long as you propose that privacy is not a human right and that the technical ability to collect personal data *is* a right. (That last is resurrecting a claim made in a prior thread which dovetails with this one).
Kind regards from the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames,
-- T.Rob
> PS. I was reading an interesting article on click-bait this morning. If only I could remember where I had seen it.
Probably this one: http://iopt.us/1srb0bf
From: Graham Hill [mailto:
]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 13:06 PM
To: T.Rob
Cc: ProjectVRM list
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Greg Satell on Let’s Face It, We Don’t Really Care About Privacy
Hi T.Rob
I posted Greg's blog post to drive a little conversation. I am pleased that you have responded, albeit in a rather effervescent way. This wasn't perhaps the type of response that I had in mind. I was rather expecting that you would have read the sources before responding. Having said that, I am pleased for each and every comment. All of us are smarter than any of us!
Privacy as an ethical concept is relative and contextual rather than absolute and fixed. What you or I consider 'private' depends upon our respective circumstances and our personal quid pro quo. Both the Pew Internet Report on 'Public Perceptions of Privacy and Security in the Post-Snowdeen Era' (http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/11/12/public-privacy-perceptions/) and the earlier Boston Consulting Group report on 'Data Privacy by the Numbers' (http://www.slideshare.net/TheBostonConsultingGroup/data-privacy-by-the-numbers) support that view. They show that people are willing to give away quite large amounts of information about themselves in exchange for something of value.
When I wrote that 'many people are concerned about their lack of digital privacy they typically expect someone else, i.e. government, to do something about it' I was merely paraphrasing the Pew Internet report that said (on Page 4) '64% believe the government should do more to regulate advertisers, compared with 34% who think the government should not get more involved'.
I am a little reluctant to discuss privacy as a legal concept as I am not a lawyer. I suspect that you are not a lawyer either. However, Article 8 that you mention appears to be both somewhat relative in its nature and only applicable to public authorities. Even then, it gives them unspecified leeway to override an individual's privacy where necessary to protect the interests of security, public safety and the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of heath and morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. As Greg's post was about privacy in a business marketing setting and my post was triggered by his, I am not entirely sure if Article 8 applies in these circumstances. Other legislation like Data Protection and Privacy and Electronic Communication obviously do apply. But that is a different topic entirely.
As Greg's blog, the other sources and my final remark all hinted at, everything does have its price. Privacy is no different. It is relative and contextual. It depends on our personal quid pro quo. The laws protecting it appear to be aimed at public authorities and even then gives them plenty of leeway to act differently. Perhaps I should have said, 'it is hardly as though privacy is a human right'.
Best regards from Bristol, Graham
PS. I was reading an interesting article on click-bait this morning. If only I could remember where I had seen it.
On 15 Dec 2014, at 16:40, T.Rob < " target="_parent"> > wrote:
> Everything has its price. Privacy is no different. It is not as though it is a human right!
Really? Is this a principle of your consulting practice because if so you might be advising your clients to commit crimes against humanity.
I refer you to Article 12 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights(http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a12 ) which states:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Of course, some clients might scoff at the authority of the UN. If they happen to be in the UK then perhaps they recognize Article 8 of the Human Rights Act of 1988 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/7 ) which states:
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
No multi-million pound ad campaign will erase the human right to privacy. This isn't one of those subjective things like "Coke is better than Pepsi" that you can just keep repeating until it becomes true for your target demographic. You'll actually need to convince a bunch of people to repeal some laws first.
> although many people are concerned about their lack of digital privacy they typically expect someone else, i.e. government, to do something about it.
Ya think? Perhaps that's because the government has pledged to do exactly that when they passed the law. See above for references. Some would say the government are actually *obliged* to uphold the aforementioned laws as if doing so were, you know, mandatory and stuff.
Of course, I may be dead wrong about all this. It has happened before. (I know, right?) In that case can you tell us who, besides you, is above these laws and why? Also, it would be handy to have a spreadsheet because us citizensserfs tend to assume nobody is above the laws and, at least in my case, find it difficult to identify those who are. Take you for instance. There is no crown in your profile photo or other identifying characteristic to indicate your elevated extrajudicial status. It is only when you put words to (virtual) paper that anyone can tell that the laws don't apply to you.
Barring that possibility, we now return you to your regularly scheduled reality where, yes, there is an actual universal human right of privacy.
Kind regards,
-- T.Rob
T.Robert Wyatt, Managing partner
IoPT Consulting, LLC
+1 704-443-TROB (8762) Voice/Text
+44 (0) 8714 089 546 Voice
From: Graham Hill [mailto:graham.hill@web.de]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 10:39 AM
To: Doc Searls
Cc: ProjectVRM list
Subject: [projectvrm] Greg Satell on Let’s Face It, We Don’t Really Care About Privacy 
Hi Doc
Harvard Business Review blogger Greg Satell has just published an interesting post on 'Let’s Face It, We Don’t Really Care About Privacy' on his Digital Tonto blog (http://www.digitaltonto.com/2014/lets-face-it-we-dont-really-care-about-privacy/?utm_source=Digital%20Tonto%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=848a327f51-The_Social_Tax12_13_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3e316dce02-848a327f51-389199989&ct=t%28The_Social_Tax12_13_2014%29). Greg references a new Pew Internet Report on 'Public Perceptions of Privacy and Security in the Post-Snowdeen Era' (http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/11/12/public-privacy-perceptions/) that highlights that although many people are concerned about their lack of digital privacy they typically expect someone else, i.e. government, to do something about it. And as an earlier Boston Consulting Group report on 'Data Privacy by the Numbers' (http://www.slideshare.net/TheBostonConsultingGroup/data-privacy-by-the-numbers) shows, these same people are often willing to give away increasingly intimate information about themselves in exchange for something of value.
As the old saying hoses… Everything has its price. Privacy is no different. It is not as though it is a human right!
Thoughts?
Best regards from Bristol, Graham
--
Dr. Graham Hill
UK +44 7564 122 633
DE +49 170 487 6192
Partner
Optima Partners
Senior Associate
Nyras Capital
--
Dr. Graham Hill
UK +44 7564 122 633
DE +49 170 487 6192
Partner
Optima Partners
Senior Associate
Nyras Capital
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.