Ronn Blankenship wrote:
>Nerd from Hell wrote:
>> > From: Jim Sharkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> >
>> > really, that is
>> > their right. I personally don't want my location to be available to
>> > everyone. Not because I have anything to hide, but because
>> > my comings and goings are no one's business.
>>
>>I disagree. I believe that it is my business. Unless you can certify that
>>you will in fact not commit any crimes, victimless or not. This was a
>>primary facet to Brin's arguement regarding two way transparency.
>
>Whatever happened to "presumed innocent until proven guilty"?
Here's something I got from Transparent Society: All information
should be available (not hidden). So all information about me is
available to you. But then all information about you is available to
me. Therefore, one of the bits of information about you that should
be available to me is that you are looking up my information! That's
the kind of full accountability that TS implies.
Sadly, the current privacy/transparency laws have not even touched on
the idea of accountability of information access. At most they talk
about ways that I could control access to my information.
As a software developer, I can tell you that it will be much harder
to hack out the record of information accessed in a system primarily
designed to record that access, than it will be to hack past some
kind of access control list in a system primarily intended to prevent
access.
For example, in a 'logging' system you can immediately log the
request for information to a permanent medium (burn a CD-ROM). To
hack that system would require physical access to the medium. That's
pretty hard for a hacker since most hacks are remote.
On the other hand, remote hacks happen all the time in systems
oriented around access control. Think of all the web sites that are
hacked. Those systems try to limit access on who has permission to
change the web pages.
Jeff
---
http://www.netjeff.com/
