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

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
.
..

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.

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