People misunderstand privacy all the time. Sinead O'Cochrane seemed to experience the recent symposium as scaremongering. While I experienced it as low key and leavened with humour. I'd love to think it rose to the energy levels fit for a scaremongering label but it just doesn't stick for me. I was first of the panel to speak and my first words were a reminder that its important not to focus on the negative side and to remember there is much that is positive in online interaction. I then said that "Whatever goes on the internet stays on the internet" Mostly because there's a story in the paper everyday of people being surprised at some outcome of this reality. Even though it would seem naive for anyone to think otherwise, people continue to be shocked. Everyday. Also Daniel's keynote talk focused on stories that had humurous connotations as opposed to the many more numerous stories that have tragic endings. Damien Mulley quickly opened the talk up to the audience and it was clear that this was the stuff that was on their collective minds. As I said in this post, talks on privacy have a habit of going round in circles with nobody getting much satisfaction. Ask someone if they care about privacy by using that abstract term and they will shrug. Ask them how they feel about someone tracking their every move and they'll admit that it makes them feel a little bit

Read the rest of this post »

I was asked to speak at a Darklight symposium. I must admit I wasn't sure if I could afford the time. I'm at a sensitive time with my business, you see. I was told the talk was on privacy. I was like. Oh in that case. I should. Then I heard that the keynote was by Daniel Solove. And I was like "Are you kidding!?" "Why didn't you say that in the first place!" The thing is there's a load of old rubbish talked about privacy. Its nobody fault really. Its just that people often find they are talking at cross purposes. The problem is that we all think we know what privacy is. That is until we are asked to define it. It then it turns out that nobody can. And that everyone has a half-baked opinion. The situation always reminds me of the story of the blind men and the elephant

Six blind men were asked to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the elephant's body. The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe. Discussions begin but each man is so sure that his own experience is definitive that the discussion goes nowhere or devolves into an argument of almost religious proportions. A wise man steps forward and explains to them: All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently is because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all the features you mentioned.

In discussions on Privacy, Daniel J. Solove is your wise man. He has stepped back and taken on the task of defining what privacy is and why it is important. Its a huge task. A task of heroic proportions. But he has succeeded in creating the definitive work on the subject. So what happened at the talk?

Read the rest of this post »