[8800] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: McNealy -- Get over it, Part Two (was Re: BNA's Internet Law
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Arnold G. Reinhold)
Mon Jun 4 12:55:10 2001
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <v04210104b741570fb61b@[24.218.56.92]>
In-Reply-To: <200106040324.XAA25290@world.std.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:31:38 -0400
To: Dan Geer <geer@world.std.com>
From: "Arnold G. Reinhold" <reinhold@world.std.com>
Cc: cryptography@wasabisystems.com, dcsb@ai.mit.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 11:24 PM -0400 6/3/2001, Dan Geer wrote:
>| >> GET OVER IT, PART TWO - THE CASE AGAINST ABSOLUTE PRIVACY
>| >> Scott McNealy of Sun Microsystems, who earlier stated that
>| >> there is no privacy and that people should get it over it,
>| >> now claims in a Washington Post editorial that absolute
>| >> privacy policies are disasters waiting to happen, writing
>| >> that the private industry has done a pretty good job so far
>| >> of regulating itself.
>| > > http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A89273-2001May28.html
>|=A0=A0
>| Scott writes: "I have agreed to let my car company, for instance,
>| track my every move through GPS satellites. Some people might
>| consider that an invasion of privacy, but I find it comforting to
>| know that, should my air bag deploy, they know where I am and can
>| send help."
>|=A0=A0
>| Why is it necessary to track a car's exact location at all times just
>| to know it's position when the air bag deploys?
>
>The point is not that there might be another way, the point is
>that understanding the bargain to be as he describes it, Scott
>finds it an acceptable one. He is far from alone, I'd wager.
>
>--dan
I agree that consumers are all too willing to sell the privacy for=20
cheap, but my point is that the bargain is being misrepresented.=20
Scott, who I suspect is motivated by a desire to sell servers, has=20
been saying that protecting the privacy of consumer records is=20
impractical and anyway there are some benefits to relinquishing=20
privacy. When the example benefits do not, in fact, require privacy=20
to be compromised, that is a deception.
As to the first point, that privacy laws are impractical, I've=20
created a Web page with an actual US privacy law that covers one=20
narrow type of computer record. Identifying information as to the=20
type of record has been deleted. You have to guess what it is. Take=20
the quiz at http://world.std.com/~reinhold/modelprivacylaw.html
Arnold Reinhold
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@wasabisystems.com
