It does not have to be government though. It could be somebody from entirely private sector. Still harm can be done on you.
Agree that people use the word privacy without clearly defining or understanding what it is. In this sense, we should avoid dictionary term - layman's term entirely. When we need to discuss properly, we need to define it first and then use it. In this sense, as I wrote in one of my blog post [1], the original Warren and Brandeis [2] definition seems to be pretty good, though it is one of the most misunderstood definition, IMHO. They said privacy is right to be let alone. This "let alone" is the specific words from Cooley [3] but people seem to have taken it as dictionary word and hence much confusion. If you read it, it means: "right of complete personal immunity". I suppose, to avoid confusion, it probably is better to use the definition portion of it instead of the defined word in the usual conversation. [1] Nat Sakimura, Why “privacy” confuses people, http://nat.sakimura.org/2012/05/02/why-privacy-confuses/ [2] Warren and Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. IV December 15, 1890 No. 5 [3] Thomas McIntyre Cooley, “Law of Torts”, Callaghan, 1888 2013/12/18 Dean Willis <dean.wil...@softarmor.com> > See: > > > http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/11/07/privacy_red_herring_debate_NSA_surveillance_debate#sthash.6ygfpfyV.dpbs > > > An exceprt: > > "I'd add one more item to Solove's list of definitions: when people speak > of privacy, often what they're really concerned about is not privacy at > all, but very concrete kinds of economic and physical harm: job loss, > theft, injury, imprisonment, and even death. That is: when people speak of > privacy they're often speaking -- albeit indirectly -- about power, and its > uses and abuses.” > > "It's one thing to know, in the abstract, that anyone walking by your > house can see into your kitchen window, but it's another thing altogether > to look out the kitchen window and discover someone staring fixedly at you. > It's one thing to know that the soccer mom sitting one table over at > Starbucks can probably make out the words on your laptop screen; it's > another thing altogether to know that "the government" can do the same > thing.” > > "The man staring fixedly through our kitchen window bothers us not because > we think he might discover us doing something "secret," but because he has > violated norms of socially acceptable behavior in a way that makes him > unpredictable: if he's willing to violate norms against staring, what other > norms might he also violate? Will he become a stalker, a blackmailer, a > burglar, a rapist, a murderer?" > > "Privacy is a red herring in the debate about NSA surveillance (and many > other kinds of covert activities). If we want meaningful reform, we need to > set aside the rhetoric of privacy, and focus instead on creating genuine > safeguards against the abuse of government power." > > — > Dean > _______________________________________________ > ietf-privacy mailing list > ietf-privacy@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy > -- Nat Sakimura (=nat) Chairman, OpenID Foundation http://nat.sakimura.org/ @_nat_en
_______________________________________________ ietf-privacy mailing list ietf-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
