In your previous mail you wrote: This claim requires an adequate operationalization of "privacy". What exactly does one mean by this? Most of the claims I hear about it, including a number of the windy assertions that there is a fundamental right (whatever that is) to it, seem never to state what exactly it is supposed to mean. => it is in the European Convention on Human Rights as a legal principle so there is at least a basis but I am afraid it won't really help. As a (French) lawyer explained to me one day, a legal text must be as less accurate as possible so it can be applied to more than one particular case so a legal principle...
None of this is to say it is impossible to add what you suggest. But it needs something more than to say "privacy" over and over again: to begin with, how is one supposed to have any clue what features might have privacy implications if one simply doesn't know what "privacy" means? => it is clearly a job for the IAB and fortunately this seems to have been well understood (cf draft-iab-privacy-considerations) To lean on your analogy a little, security discussions often exhibit the sorts of problems I'm talking about here, too. That is nowise an argument that we don't need the sort of operational definition I'm talking about. On the contrary, many of the nastier security discussions I've ever seen boil down to a disagreement about the boundaries of the term "security". => I am sure it is easy to find some examples where a particular point is viewed in favor or against the security according to different people. And we can expect some trade-offs between security and privacy too... Regards francis.dup...@fdupont.fr PS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights (see the article 8 about privacy). _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
