+1. The German Lander sounds like a soul mate for Dr Gruber. From: Graham Reginald Hill <
">
> Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 at 3:55 To: < "> > Cc: < "> > Subject: Aw: Re: [projectvrm] Greg Satell on Let’s Face It, We Don’t Really Care About Privacy Hi Steve I am in full agreement in principle. But in practice the Googles, Faceboooks and Apples of this world have so much information about us that privacy is in effect dead. At least in any meaningful sense of the word. There is no way to put the big data genie back into the bottle. I don't see this as an existential problem, although I suspect that I might change my mind of the data was used to discriminate against me in a way that I thought was unreasonable and unfair. I have absolutely no problem with being targeted for contextual marketing, even though most of it is spam. At worst, I just ignore it. I would also have no problem with paying more for auto insurance if in-car telematics showed that I drove like my namesake. As it happens, I drive a Toyota Land Cruiser so high-speed pursuits are out of the question. But I would have a problem if details of my hypothetical 23andMe genetic profile were used to deny my children life insurance cover. I do not trust 'privacy advocates' to work in the best interests of consumers. Like many single issue advocates their models of what is in consumers best interests are often at odds with consumers own models. I have seen the same thing with data protection advocates in the German Länder. One of them even had the temerity to justify his hard-line approach to data protection on the grounds that consumers could not be trusted to act in their own best interests. It was LeGrand's 'knights and knaves, queens and pawns' thesis write large. Fortunately his political mastrs quickly put him in his place; another job! As the various studies show, consumers are willing to share some details about them in exchange for value. But they are not willing to share other things, no matter how much value they can get for them. Although everything has its price, sometimes the price is too high to pay. As you rightly say, privacy is progressive. Best regards from Bristil, Graham -- Dr. Graham Hill "> UK +44 7564 122 633 DE +49 170 487 6192 http://twitter.com/GrahamHill http://www.linkedin.com/in/grahamhill http://www.customerthink.com/graham_hill Partner Optima Partners http://www.optimapartners.co.uk Senior Associate Nyras Capital http://www.nyras.co.uk Associate Ctrl-Shift https://www.ctrl-shift.co.uk Gesendet: Montag, 15. Dezember 2014 um 19:46 Uhr Von: "> An: "> Betreff: Re: [projectvrm] Greg Satell on Let’s Face It, We Don’t Really Care About Privacy
Graham,
I agree that - privacy is relative - privacy has a price - people trade personal information for things of value.
But I reject the conclusion that because people trade their information and often make poor choices doing so, privacy is dead. If privacy is relative then we should never impute a state of "zero privacy". People who give up personal information are rarely fully aware of the consequences, so we cannot conclude that they have foresaken privacy or have no expectations of privacy.
Progressive privacy formulations totally recognise the reality of the information trade. Privacy can actually be protected if the personal information for service bargain is transparent and fair. Many privacy advocates look at this through a consumer protection lens, and call simply for better behaviour by businesses. It is clear that the Facebooks of the world are covert hoarders of personal information. They obfuscate and bias the personal data bargain. They rip off consumers' information.
More here: http://lockstep.com.au/blog/2011/12/13/trade-pii-not-privacy
Cheers,
Steve.
Stephen Wilson Lockstep Consulting provides independent specialist advice and analysis
-----Original Message----- 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.
-- 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.