Hi Nat,
At 06:57 18-12-2013, Nat Sakimura wrote:
Perhaps you did not read my blog post.
I read the blog post. The image in the post highlights the different angles.
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"
Yes. There is a newspaper article that led to the above.
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.
The paragraph containing the sentence is about Torts.
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.
Yes.
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.
The word "guaranteed" (which I used) is not the correct term. What
you wrote above sums it up.
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.
I look at it this way; it has to be something IETF participants will
agree to. That's the difficult part. :-)
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
_______________________________________________
ietf-privacy mailing list
ietf-privacy@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
