[MyData & Open Data] My Data, Our Data, Their Data

stef s at ctrlc.hu
Sat Mar 16 12:37:56 UTC 2013

On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 03:52:29PM -0300, Song, Stephen wrote:
> I think this is useful to some degree.  Based on that is it fair to say
> that group privacy and individual privacy are different things?

i have not encountered the concept of group-privacy. if there is individual
privacy how can my membership of a group not be private? either i am private
about something as an individual or not. 

> At an individual level we can argue that every individual should be treated
> equally in terms of their right to privacy.

no i disagree, not everyone needs the same kind of protection, some
individuals actually do not have a right to privacy, they get other benefits
instead. policemen, judges, politicians need to be held accountable as they
have monopolies and or power over society. we need these brakes and controls.

> At the group level, we can argue that some groups must have additional
> protection because they are vulnerable.

you understand grouping as individuals having the same value for an attribute?
isn't that also known as profiling?

> Or perhaps groups are not the point but aggregation of data is?

i don't really understand this.

> I would add another rule.  Do no harm.

sounds good, let's define harm.

> This came home to me after reading
> Patrick Meier's excellent analysis of the gun map that was created
> following the Newtown massacre.  It is well worth reading.
> http://irevolution.net/2013/01/23/perils-of-crisis-mapping/

hmmm, some tactical harm (collateral damage) might be necessary to educate
people in the long run. i really liked the idea to collect all the "we're on
holiday" tweets with the combination with the addresses of the tweeters sold
in packages on ebay. that clearly was an educational measure and not a crime.

> As an answer to some of the issues he raises, I find Danah Boyd's
> perspective on privacy compelling (
> http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/2010/WWW2010.html).  Her key arguments
> are:
> 1) Security Through Obscurity Is a Reasonable Strategy

it raises some costs yes. but the question is, who will have enough resources
to overcome this barrier? obscurity is not a very effective countermeasure,
only against the unprepared adversary, the ones that operate on chance not on
determination. and for-profit surely creates a lot of determination and

> 2) Not All Publicly Accessible Data is Meant to be Publicized

i question then why is it collected, who payed for it, and is the information
asymmetry necessary and proportional?

> 3) People Who Share PII Aren’t Rejecting Privacy
> 4) Aggregating and Distributing Data Out of Context is a Privacy Violation

i think there are stronger rules for violation, but this is one yes.

> 5) Privacy is Not Access Control

depending on interpretation that's a challenging thought.

> ...perhaps there is some scope for operationalising some of those ideas
> from a policy perspective.
> Apologies in advance if my thoughts are not completely coherent.

they are inspiring. thanks!

> All the privacy research I have read in the last couple of months still
> feels like a jumble of jigsaw pieces.

i agree there's more questions than answers.

pgp: https://www.ctrlc.hu/~stef/stef.gpg
pgp fp: FD52 DABD 5224 7F9C 63C6  3C12 FC97 D29F CA05 57EF
otr fp: https://www.ctrlc.hu/~stef/otr.txt

More information about the mydata-open-data mailing list