Privacilla-Open Source Privacy Policy Making?

sonnerbob asks: "There was this article at Wired (which I'm sure has already been submitted), but what I found most interesting was the reference to Privacilla.Org which intends to 'loosely follow the open source software development model described by Eric Raymond.' Since I do subscribe in large part to 'free market liberalism', the principles of the Cato Institute, and try to convey as much at WebVeil.Com, I would like to read the comments from Slashdotters, both on the open source approach and the angle on the privacy issue itself."

Comments

I object to being linked to libertarians ... again

[ajv]

Libertarian nuts != open source.

I'm sick of it. Libertarians are the fringe of politics and for good reason. Libertarians are NOT the friends of open source, and we would do well to steer clear of them.

Civil society improves the lot of the average peasant. Secular humanism improves the lot of oppressed non-Christians everywhere. Governments are good for society, as it allows society to flourish without fear from random uprisings or internecine civil warfare. An open, democratic society is demonstrably better than being in a despotic state (see Burma) or a lawless state (see Indonesia, a raft of sub-Saharan african nations such). You get one the best forms of democratic state via the use of the Westminster system, where church and state are separated. Examples are the US, England, Australia, and New Zealand. Very similar democracies exist in most European countries as well.

What does libertarians wish? Really dang small government, where the government is cast as the evil doer. The libertarian extremists wish us all to be armed to be teeth to protect ourselves from the nuts next door (as well as the guv'mint) because under their model, there is no government to interfere in their "right" to do whatever they damn well please.

Anyway, if there really was dang small government, there would be really big business. Can you imagine what would happen to what might have been the Internet? It would be expensive (recall Compu$erve). It would be proprietary (recall Compu$erve). Linux wouldn't be anywhere because the government would have let a DCMA style bill pass much before now so IBM's MCA bus would have succeeded, and we would all be paying IBM tax and not Microsoft tax on our new PC's. So remember, libertarians are NOT your friends.

This is all so far from actually doing any coding of any sort that I wish places like slashdot (where it is co-joined all too regularly) would drop these little nuggets of crap in /dev/null where they damn well belong.

harumpf.

Look at who's behind privacilla.org...

[cornbread]

Jim Harper, who is idetified as the founder of Privacilla is a former staffer for the House Judiciary Committee. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the same group who tried to push through the Communications Decency Act (the one that would charge you $250K if you said "fuck you" to someone, or talked about AIDS, etc.). And this is also the same group that approved the release of Monica Lewinsky's entire testimony on the web - which if CDA had passed would have meant they were all liable under that Act? And let's not even talk about the privacy implications of that move...

Given the selection of organizations supporting privicilla (where DID he ge that name?), it's clear Harper is more concerned with building a bureaucratic structure to financially support him - moreso than acheive anything substantive. He is the principal at http://www.policycounsel.com/ which is another store-front lobbying consulting firm, of which another 20 or 30 will pop up here in DC over the next few months as staffers to elected officials and political appointees find themselves without a job after November (I live and work in DC and have seen this more than a few times).

Given the conservative nature of the organizations supporting Privacilla (which according to the website do not include Cato) it seems curious - these are the same folks who would support censorship on the web, support Microsoft's closed-source business model, and don't really care which way the privacy thing goes, as long as their making money. I find it ironic that he wants to follow some "open-source" model for his project - given that the organizations that support him don't support open source....?

Re:I object to being linked to libertarians ... ag

[Russ Nelson]

Libertarians are NOT the friends of open source, and we would do well to steer clear of them.

I am *too* the friend of open source. I resent your assertion that I'm not. I've been running an open source business for 9 years now. Check out my web site to see the free software activities that I support.

I have nothing but contempt for anyone who says I don't work hard enough for open source.

where church and state are separated.

I just want a system where state and economy are separated. The government can be as big as it wants, as long as it keeps its nose out of what I buy and sell.

the [libertarian] government would have let a DCMA style bill

Nope. No libertarian government would pass such a fascist bill. I wonder if you understand what you are criticizing?
-russ

Open Source Privacy

[Reality Master 101]

The solution to privacy has finally been found! We've all suspected for a long time that open source is that answer to everything, and here is the proof.

What we need to do is all open up our privacy! There is too much privacy hoarding in this society. After all, more eyes mean shallow bugs in your life.

After all, we know there is no such thing as intellectual property, and what is privacy except personal intellectual property?

Think of the benefits! You may like your shaving cream, but that's just because you haven't had the benefit of open source privacy. There would be legions of helpful people that would help you fix that bug by letting you know of better shaving cream solutions... for free!

The solution has been under our nose for years. Slashdot can now retire the privacy categories.

--

Vapour Asks :

[vapour]

Posted by Vapour on 11:43 AM September 21st, 2000
from the stuff-to-talk-about dept.
Vapour asks: "There was this article at Wired (which was dull the first time), and I found that it provided an incredible opportunity to post a dull privacy story on Slashdot. This random linkPrivacilla.Org allows me some semblance of intelligence, which moderators love, indeed, here is another :Eric Raymond.' Since I do subscribe in large part to very long words, such as existensialism, more mundane principles atCato Institute, and general bad grammar and incoherenceWebVeil.Com, I would like to read the comments from Slashdotters, because I have nothing better to do."

< CmdrTaco And Hemos Speaking At MIT Thurs | Mozilla-KDE Integration >

vapour
.
..

Balance needed

[Ron Harwood]

Personally, I think that people worry too much about privacy. I'm not saying that it isn't a valid concern - but in some cases it's a bit like putting the genie back in the bottle.

People will fill in contest entries, credit card applications, and survey forms (electronic or otherwise) without even thinking about the privacy issues - but then they'll scream when they get personalised junk mail...

Now the darker end of the spectrum is what bothers me - when someone like your doctor gives out information about you... and it happens. Ask around to anyone you know that's had a baby recently - have they received any 'special offers' in the mail for baby needs? How about telemarketers targetted for the same thing? It happens - the worst I've heard involved a couple who lost their baby only days after it was born... the mail and telemarketers where a constant reminder...

YALTTISR

[konstant]

Yet Another Libertarian Theory That Ignores Simple Reality

Privacilla's primary argument and probably its whole raison d'etre is to argue that privacy is not really a concern when personal information is placed in the hands of businesses, and that only government infringments are dangerous to the public.

This ignores simple reality - I use a simple system of pseudonyms to judge which of my online transactions are leaked for cash, and in all cases so far, a business has been the culprit. Especially major businesses like CNN.com and bn.com, although it sometimes is difficult to decide whether the leak was intentional or an inadvertant loss to some cracker. According to Privacilla, these are the merchants who supposedly will be checked by market forces.

The problem with this fine theory is that the majority of users put no forethought into tagging their transactions and thus they have no means of pegging loss of privacy on any culprit. After all, my name, address, and telephone number are always the same, irrespective of who leaks them.

I simply don't trust market forces or any other "invisible hand" to keep my data private. So far no such thing has worked for me or the majority of people online. Otherwise, why would it be an issue? For a real solution to this problem (albeit an expensive one) consider Zero Knowledge, which offers pseudonyms and dual-anonymizing proxies while on the web.


-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!

Some valid points...

[Millennium]

The article does bring up a valid point; can the government really be trusted to protect privacy?

The problem is, I'm not so certain we have any other choice. Anyone who thinks businesses will self-regulate privacy concerns is truly naive. Ther can sell the information (thereby increasing profits) or use it to target their advertising (thereby reducing marketing costs). And in the end, that's all any business wants to do. It's the nature of the beast; sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad. In this case, I'd say, it's pretty damn bad. Sure, businesses shouldn't be hindered unduly in their relentless pursuit of The Almighty Buck, but the rights of the people to determine their own levels of privacy far outweigh the rights of a corporation to target their ads.

Given that businesses won't regulate privacy, and citizens don't, as a rule, have the clout to make them do it, I'm not so sure we have any choice but to bring the government into it. I can't say it's a particularly desirable choice, but if we want to keep our privacy I doubt there's any alternative. Even if you can keep your information to yourself for now, that will change eventually if nothing is done about it.

What I'd like to see come out of this, though, is a privacy amendment to the Constitution; quite possibly the only thing the Framers seem to have overlooked. Personally, I would word it something like this:

1) The governments of the States, and of the United States, recognize the rights of all people to due privacy, including but not limited to that of one's person, one's property, and one's personal information.
2) Neither Congress nor the States shall make any law permitting the violation of the rights defined in the above paragraph, except when the person in question has given explicit and informed consent, or when the proper warrants have been obtained in a court of Law.
3) In particular, no person shall be denied any business or governmental transaction on account of failure to provide one's own personal information, unless there be a bona fide necessity for such information to be given, else such transaction is not possible.

How's it sound? Opinions? Suggestions for refinement?
----------

Re:Cato finally gives up the pretence

[guran]

Ah this streetlawyer. One is seldom sure wether he is trolling or not...
However, I've seen too many posts like this not to reply.

So your personal information is your property? Like your adress, meat or online? Like your name? Like your hair color? Exactly how do you propose we enforce this? In your ideal world there would be no communication, since I cannot contact you without seeking your permission. And I can't get that permission since I can't contact you. There we sit shivering in two separate caves unaware that there is that thing called "fire" that we could use for warmth. We never heard of it, since the guy who discovered it wanted to respect our privacy.

In this world you must give up some of that sacred privacy, or be left alone. Oh yes I forgot, you want to be left alone! Because if people knew where you were, some evil corporation might abuse that knowledge!

For every piece of information, as well as for every piece of physical good, there is use and abuse. You restrict access to that information and expect only the abuse to be affected. (if you could, it would mean that the RIAA et al are right)

Of course the line must be drawn somewhere. I don't want my medical data available. In those cases the damage of abuse outweighs the gain of fair use. The rule is that everything that is not said in strict confidence must be considered public knowledge.

Bless the fair use, deal with the abuse, get a life!

Cato finally gives up the pretence

[streetlawyer]

At last, Cato, the worst libertarians to ever take up the name, have stopped pretending to be anything other than a business lobby group.

Any sensible libertarian would realise that my information, about me, is my property, and that it is the proper role of the government to protect my property rights in that information. If I want to sell it to a business, then that's my right, but I sell it under the terms I want, and I don't for example, want to licence them to sell it on to other businesses. Nor do I want my contract with them to be invalidated by their insolvency (no other kind of contract is)

Basically, there is no "fair use" when it comes to my individual information -- unless someone wants to critique my surname, or satirise my telephone number. Nor is there "first sale", because this information isn't copyrighted. It isn't patented. It's just owned. By me. And the law doesn't recognise that.

The Cato Institute wants to prevent me from defending my property against the big banks and companies that pay its bills. This isn't the first time they've been caught out on a personal liberty issue like this. Screw them and their silly strawman "government is worse" arguments. They're not libertarians; they;re corporatarians. If the word "liberty" could be trademarked, they'd be in breach.

And I hope no "information wants to be free" types are fooled by them.

Re:Cato finally gives up the pretence

[streetlawyer]

In your ideal world there would be no communication, since I cannot contact you without seeking your permission. And I can't get that permission since I can't contact you. There we sit shivering in two separate caves

Strawman. This problem, like so many other "online" issues, is obviously analogous to one in traditional property law, which has been solved to everyone's satisfaction.

I hope it can be agreed that the route from the pavement to my front door is my property. But anyone who wants to call on me, and who I have not specifically requested not to, is assumed to have my permission to ring on my doorbell. So it is with email addresses, etc, etc. But if I choose to become a hermit and not allow anyone to contact me, I have that right.

For every piece of information, as well as for every piece of physical good, there is use and abuse. You restrict access to that information and expect only the abuse to be affected.

No, I want to allow every natural individual to decide where they, as individuals, want to draw the line when it comes to public access to their private property. Some people are happy for the neighbourhood softball league to practice in their field, or for the local kids to pick apples off their trees. Some people declare that they will meet all intrusion with deadly force. I want to be able to control what access people have to the online equivalent, and I expect the government I pay for to give me the legal tools I require to enforce my rights

if you could, it would mean that the RIAA et al are right

Maybe they are right. In any case, whether they are or not makes no difference to the question of whether my identity (which is not a creative work) is my property (which it is; it's part of me).

Ah this streetlawyer. One is seldom sure wether he is trolling or not...

So you have to respond to what he actually said, rather than just pigeonholing his arguments and firing off a boilerplate Slashbot auto-reply. How terrible for you. How terrible for you all.

Re:Cato finally gives up the pretence

[guran]

But if I choose to become a hermit and not allow anyone to contact me, I have that right.

Sure, fine by me. The issue is really what the default should be. If I walk up to your door and see no sign saying either "hermit residence keep out" or "Come in, come in whoever you are" What should I expect?

The consensus of our society is that unless anything else is specified, I may walk straight to your door and ring the doorbell. If you do not answer it may or may not be considered OK to have a look on the back of your house, depending on where you live. If you tell me to go away I shoud do that, if you are not at home I should leave, perhaps dropping a note.

If you have a mailbox I assume it is OK to put mail in it. If you print your e-mail adress I assume it is OK to use it.

If you want to be a hermit, *you* are responsible for letting everyone know that you don't want any contact. Not because you "don't have the right to privacy" but because most people are not hermits and everyone assumes that if you don't state any preferences you want to be treated like everyone else.

Your name and adress might be considered your private property. The *information* about your name and adress can not. "Information wants to be free" is used to death, but in this case it is true. You can not keep the information of your existence to yourself (not really). You are, however, entitled to the amount of privacy of your choice *despite* the fact that your existence is public knowledge. (to the extent of the law)

I want to allow every natural individual to decide where they, as individuals, want to draw the line when it comes to public access to their private property.

So do I. As I said, the question is what I should consider default.

So you have to respond to what he actually said, rather than just pigeonholing his arguments and firing off a boilerplate Slashbot auto-reply. How terrible for you. How terrible for you all.

Since my post could be considered to be against absolute privacy, it hardly qualifies as a slashbot response, does it?
Anyway, that one can't tell your trolling from sincere posts is IMHO a good thing...

Re:Cato finally gives up the pretence

[guran]

When an individual has an economic interest in me and my personal information, that individual's access to my personal information should be regulated.

No
The individuals (or corporations) *use* of that data should be regulated.
Furthermore, the spreading of information that is potentially harmful to me as an individual should be regulated.

I don't mind if Visa has extensive info about my buying habits as long as they keep it to themselves I wouldn't mind if my mail adress was common knowledge if I didn't get spammed as a consequence

Some people seem to think that the proverbial cat will go back into the bag simply because it is my cat. Exactly the same reasoning the media giants use. Fredom of information can be turned against you just as easily as it can be turned against Universal.

The failure of "self-regulation"

[Russ Nelson]

"Self-regulation" hasn't failed. Nobody ever expected companies to regulate themselves. It's the market that will regulate companies use of information about ourselves. Now, some people don't like the decisions other people make, so they want to interfere with those decisions. They claim that "self-regulation" has failed.

What has happened instead is thatt some people have discovered that it's to their benefit to share information about themselves. Some privacy advocates forget that there can be benefits to disclosing information about yourself. The real question here is not whether private information is being shared. The question is: did you give this information willingly, and were you compensated for it.

If you were compensated for telling people about yourself, then stop whining about how "self-regulation" has failed, because the "self" is *your*self. And there's no way a government can save your from your own mistakes.
-russ

Swinging attitudes

[emmanuel.charpentier]

Well, it seems there is going to be two main outcomes:
-the government step in and assure its citizens their privacy is safe in its hand. Eventually abuses and scandals happen, public's interest is on, the law is changed to take away some of this power and to let the actors manage themselves.
-free market let the different actors decide for themselves. Abuses and scandals happen, public's interest is on, the companies or individuals involved get bad publicity, lose money and change their policies. If this happen a lot, laws are made to handle some of the recurrent problems.

From -my- libertarian POV, I go for the second solution (I generally prefer a contract than a law), it requires me to be critical about who I trust with my personal information, it gives me the freedom to not care or to be retentive.
But in both cases, there is going to be a swinging pendulum between laissez-faire and regulations, its energy coming from public's awareness.

Look, all I want...

[isaac]

...is to be allowed to take my privacy into my own hands.

That means, to be allowed, legally, to use junkbuster, deserialize my CueCat, refuse (or falsify) my name and address at RadioShack, buy a Tivo (or similar) and never use the service, etc. without bringing down the goon squad.

What I'm worried about is a future in which I'm prohibited by law from taking these measures. we're already half-way there with the DMCA, causing me to swear off movies, TV, and music (which is saving me beaucoup $$$ and time - I doubt I'll ever consume that crap again). I see a day coming when I'll be requred by law to personally identify myself to every website I visit, thanks to some poorly-written "privacy" legislation, wherin circumventing P3P (by not storing all my correct personal info in my browser) will be a crime, or somesuch.

-Isaac

Now I understand it.

[garethwi]

All open source applications have to end in 'illa' and being with either 'k' or 'gn'.

So, when do we get our first 'killa' application?

WARNING: int-property is not free market

[argoff]

if you want to know what the GPL is really about, that is it.

After all, if the govt went regulating the natural supply and demand of oranges, every free market advocate would see it for waht it is - a farce. But if they start regulating the free flow of information, and give it a fancy name like intellectual-property - then wala, it's a God given right.

(ya know, 2 million Americans died in a war partly to proove that just because a government calls something a property right, does not mean that it is, I digress)

"privacilla" is a misleading name

[orabidoo]

they're going to be writing documents for political lobbying, not doing anything tech related, let alone anything to do with mozilla. i'd rather see an organization that focused on building a version of mozilla with strong privacy features, and *they* would have much better claim to the name "privacilla".

Privacilla.org clueless about hypertext

[Animats]

"Download this big PDF document and then look at this list of non-linked headings to see what changed." Those guys need a less clueless web designer.

Also, someone needs to tell them that using the same META keyword five times makes search engines tag you as a spammer.

The content is stuff we've all seen before, too.