Hello Scott!
(somewhat OT)...
In your argument you tend to agree that there will be a balance between security and privacy as we have today? I mean, there can not be 100% guaranteed privacy while belonging to a community - you have to interact with people who interact with others. Heck, every business in the world depends on "word of mouth" as a form of free advertising! This happens when one person divulges some information to another.
But you are correct, there are trust relationships formed at the communal level. These relationships are governed by our individual needs as well as our communal needs. If digitalme can provide us the tools we need to define those relationships, it will go a long way to liberating the internet from the current model.
My point is this, the balance of privacy and security is very real. We tend to think in grand terms when we talk about privacy but in what context does that privacy live? It doesn't live in a vacuum. There is some give and take on just how much privacy one can have and still be a participant in society (or community).
So with that in mind, there will need to be much debate on just how much privacy will be sacrificed to maintain some semblence of civility in cyberspace. This argument grows from our real world experience which does not define our cyberworld experience. In that essence, this debate almost fails but only to a point.
The same technology that gathers information can also be used in a reverse fashion. Quite frankly if my personal information can be tracked thereby allowing me to uncover the "guilty" parties, I feel my privacy doesn't need to be 100%. I can make an informed decision on which relationships to maintain or sever. Allowing me the power of choice multiplies as others join in.
That's the problem with our information today in the real world. We want to protect our personal information because there is no control, no path for me to follow it. If companies know that they can and will be held responsible by individuals regarding the handling of their personal information, things would be alot differnet in our world today.
I feel that a model that would empower the individual to the point whereby their decisions to cut relationships or maintian them will directly affect corporate policy regarding the gathering of information is a step in the right direction.
There needs to be more debate on this at a different level in our society where marketing and sensationalism are not factors in the presentation of the arguments made. This will take some time for us to figure out but I have confidence. We were able to make good with the telephone (these same arguments of tracking were presented when the phone first began to populate homes) so I can see us following a similar path.
Also, one other thing - AOL's involvement in the Melissa case - perhaps I have a very "inside" perspective on just how that sort of thing works but AOL's Terms of Service explains things very fairly and openly. Almost like our laws in the real world. It's no secret that if you do wrong, AOL will comply with authorities. They can't do otherwise without reprimand from those authorities (obstruction).
Also, from my understanding of the case, the virus writer "compromised" someone else's account so isn't that a crime? If someone stole a user account in your corporation and then used it to create/distribute a tool of destruction how would you feel?
[Sure we can point to AOL's shortcomings in it's security model but the weakest link in that model is the end-user.]
That point I won't argue here since it would take too long but if AOL didn't do what it did, does it then open itself to civil lawsuits as the source of the problem or at least as a facilitor?
Now that's a chilling affect -
It would send a chilling message if in some way AOL were to be held responsible for the actions of a "hacker" or as a haven for such activity. I for one would not want AOL "protecting" anyone who in my mind and the law's eyes had facilitated or committed a crime PERIOD. That goes for any service or company or agency or whatever.
Privacy should never shield foul deeds. I'm not willing to sacrifice that for 100% privacy.
Peter J Strifas |
