Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 01/18/2013 10:47 AM: > No argument really. Just that the definitions probably at least have > some constraints -- and that if they aren't somehow reconcilable with > the definitions of those in the out-group and the boss, then there may > be trouble that damages the organization's productivity.
Interesting. So, going back to embarrassing or implicating a victim by aggregating public data, the guide for when it's [not] OK to do that, might be related to this external set of constraints. By external, I mean external to members (open data advocates) and non-members (privacy advocates) of the clique, as well as an authority figure (prosecutors). While we often assume the prosecutors, or more generally the whole justice dept, are slaves of the law, they're actually not. LEOs bias the law by paying closer attention to various attributes. Hence, the law could be the external constraints you're proposing, right? But we'd need non-LEOs ... perhaps "watchdogs" ... to bridge the gap between the LEO bias and the constraints. If we went in this direction, it would provide an argument for placing legal restrictions on the aggregation of public data. I.e. it's not the vague notion of politeness that does it. It's the implicit status as "watchdog", enforcer of the unenforced-due-to-bias parts of the standard, that does what we need. -- -- glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
