Re: [ietf-privacy] Is there an official working definition for Privacy Online?

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sun, 01 May 2016 23:11 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEEEA12B00F for <ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 May 2016 16:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z6iPbQVdrYF7 for <ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 May 2016 16:11:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE42B12D17F for <ietf-privacy@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 May 2016 16:11:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u41NBb6N000585 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 1 May 2016 16:11:38 -0700
To: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe@cdt.org>, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
References: <552FCC84.6040305@gmail.com> <CA+9kkMCYuEGRidB1D=SGA0qxk+SuX6+HyqToYDmqQVmpBskWrw@mail.gmail.com> <5530329E.4060608@dcrocker.net> <01F784DA-5FD5-4D1F-8613-C2E668EDA765@isoc.org> <55311CE9.9040003@dcrocker.net> <DB3PR07MB138A042321BB99DF9AB94A4BCE30@DB3PR07MB138.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <55313140.9040400@dcrocker.net> <015a01d0798d$509954c0$f1cbfe40$@huitema.net> <CABtrr-X6CgN3J0dA1YBED0j6K7D5Mt2NAbUwGF5E67BoFX9JUQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <57268D25.3070708@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 01 May 2016 16:11:33 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABtrr-X6CgN3J0dA1YBED0j6K7D5Mt2NAbUwGF5E67BoFX9JUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sun, 01 May 2016 16:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-privacy/fmdaIUQ_QOSrxBNGws9NxOdikgY>
Cc: ietf-privacy@ietf.org, Josh Howlett <Josh.Howlett@jisc.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [ietf-privacy] Is there an official working definition for Privacy Online?
X-BeenThere: ietf-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: Internet Privacy Discussion List <ietf-privacy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-privacy>, <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-privacy/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-privacy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy>, <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 May 2016 23:11:54 -0000

On 4/23/2015 12:52 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> wrote:
>> On Friday, April 17, 2015, at 9:14 AM, Dave Crocker wrote
>>> ...
>>> This translates into "privacy relates to controlling disclosure of
>>> information about a person or organization."  Then add the
>>> scope-of-control portion.
>>
>> There is indeed some fuzziness in the definition of privacy.
...
> There is emerging academic work (not published yet, so I won't cite)
> that discusses privacy as what philosophers call an "essentially
> contested concept."


If the term is to be a non-technical and vague reference, then let's 
stop using it as if it were a technical term.  Philosophical, academic 
and social terms are fine; the problem is when we use them as if they 
pertained to technical specifics.

If we intend the term to have technical utility, it's needs precise and 
useful definition.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net