Perhaps you did not read my blog post. Warren and Brandeis quoted "to be let alone" from Cooley. It goes this way:
Recent inventions and business methods call attention to the next step > which must be taken for the protection of the person, and for securing to > the individual what Judge Cooley calls the right "to be let alone" In turn, Cooley used the phrase this way: Personal immunity. The right to one’s person may be said to be a right of > complete immunity: to be let alone. Therefore, what was meant by W&B is indeed is the right of complete immunity. Somehow, American lawyers started to take them narrower than what is apparently stated in the paper. However, going back to the original, it is pretty good actually. As to the "right" is concerned, I am not sure if it is "guaranteed by law" all the time. It is not always that clear. In this particular case, what belong to the person, and what to the community and the public is not always clearly delineated. As a standard body which sets standards, which are not regulations (in the sense of ISO Guiide 2), there is no value if we go below the regulations as it is going to be illegal then. It has to set a higher standard and thus the amount that we have to cover is larger than those regulations covers. Nat 2013/12/18 S Moonesamy <sm+i...@elandsys.com> > Hi Nat, > > At 03:58 18-12-2013, Nat Sakimura wrote: > >> 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. >> > > There has been some discussion on other IETF mailing lists about the > definition of the word "privacy". Warren and Brandeis are often cited in a > U.S context. The "right of personal immunity" is broader than privacy. > > Within an IETF context it might be a problem if the "right to be let > alone" is used. In my opinion a right is guaranteed by law and that > doesn't fit in with what the IETF does. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > -- 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
