Re: [projectvrm] Greg Satell on Let’s Face It, We Don’t Really Care About Privacy

[Doc Searls < >]

> On Dec 16, 2014, at 1:35 PM, Iain Henderson 
> <
 >
>  wrote:
> 
> Well said John. 
> 
> The purpose of this list, as I recall it, is to discuss and foster the 
> development of VRM or related projects

This is true, and important to recall.

> ; not to debate whether VRM or the mind set that wishes to build on the 
> side of the individual is a good idea.

This is also true, but it is still good to have our assumptions challenged.

> Perhaps we need a separate list for that debate (I for one won’t be 
> joining).

Up to others if they want to do that.

Doc

> 
> Cheers
> 
> Iain
> 
> 
>> On 16 Dec 2014, at 12:56, Wunderlich, John 
>> <
 >
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Graham;
>> 
>> <Rant alert>
>> 
>> Companies do things all the time. Depending on the country, we're talking 
>> about, they use child labour, shoot union militants, or expose workers to 
>> poisonous chemicals. All of these practices are in violation of the 
>> Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In many cases, however, they are 
>> clearly lawful in the countries where they occur, not least because in 
>> many of those countries, the companies write the laws (see Elizabeth 
>> Warren's recent comments on Citibank and Dodd-Frank for a 1st world 
>> example). None of these examples 'drive a coach and horse' through the 
>> rights being violate. They just demonstrate that people and the companies 
>> they run are flawed.
>> 
>> This is not a fruitful discussion. I'm on the list because I think that 
>> there is a way to build system that respect user choice and that,  in the 
>> long run, agency has to be shared with users. That's the essence of the 
>> privacy discussion in a commercial setting - individuals should have some 
>> element of choice and control over what is done with their information, 
>> and should have some element of choice and control over their browsers, 
>> computers and information environment. I'm not on this list to make 
>> apologies for companies that vioate user trust or privacy in the name of 
>> 'innovation' or 'progress'. 
>> 
>> <Rant over>
>> 
>> I support initiatives like Open Notice, Customer Commons, and the Respect 
>> Network because they recognize and support user agency and move away from 
>> what I believe are abusive and non-sustainable models.
>> 
>> JW
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tuesday, December 16, 2014, Graham Reginald Hill 
>> <
 >
>>  wrote:
>> Hi T.Rob
>> 
>> There is always discussion to be had. The UN is just another political 
>> talking shop. Discussion is its stock in trade. Enacting laws is not.
>> 
>> Your settled facts may be others' fantasy fiction. Companies routinely 
>> collect vaste amount of data about individuals. They then 'aggregate, 
>> correlate, match and refine' it. It is clearly lawful to do so. I think 
>> that rather drives a coach and horses through your rather extreme 
>> interpretation of the right to privacy. One that appears to be neither 
>> supported by Article 8 that you referred to, nor by the Data Protection 
>> and Privacy and Electronic Communications regulations .
>> 
>> Best regards from 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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 20:17 Uhr
>> Von: "T.Rob" 
>> <
 >
>> An: "'Graham Hill'" 
>> <
 >
>> Cc: "'ProjectVRM list'" 
>> <
 >
>> Betreff: RE: [projectvrm] Greg Satell on Let’s Face It, We Don’t Really 
>> Care About Privacy
>>> 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 
>> <
 >
>>  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
>> 
>> https://ioptconsulting.com
>> 
>> https://twitter.com/tdotrob
>> 
>> 
>> From: Graham Hill 
>> [mailto:
 ]
>>  
>> 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
>> 
>> http://twitter.com/GrahamHill
>> 
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/grahamhil
>> 
>> 
>> Partner
>> 
>> Optima Partners
>> 
>> http://www.optimapartners.co.uk
>> 
>> 
>> Senior Associate
>> 
>> Nyras Capital
>> 
>> http://www.nyras.co.uk
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Dr. Graham Hill
>> 
>> 
 
>> 
>> UK +44 7564 122 633
>> 
>> DE +49 170 487 6192
>> 
>> http://twitter.com/GrahamHill
>> 
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/grahamhil
>> 
>> 
>> Partner
>> 
>> Optima Partners
>> 
>> http://www.optimapartners.co.uk
>> 
>> 
>> Senior Associate
>> 
>> Nyras Capital
>> 
>> http://www.nyras.co.uk
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> John Wunderlich
>> Fat fingered from a mobile device
>> Pleez 4give spelling errurz!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended 
>> solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. 
>> If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. 
>> This message contains confidential information and is intended only for 
>> the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not 
>> disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender 
>> immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and 
>> delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient 
>> you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any 
>> action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly 
>> prohibited.
> 
> This email and any attachment contains information which is private and 
> confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you are not an 
> addressee, you are not authorised to read, copy or use the e-mail or any 
> attachment. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the 
> sender by return e-mail and then destroy it.
>