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
_______________________________________________
ietf-privacy mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
