Re: WORTH READING CMU Privacy-Enhanced Search Engine Study

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

________________________________________
From: Seth [sethb () panix com]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 6:43 PM
To: David Farber
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:  WORTH READING  CMU Privacy-Enhanced Search Engine Study

Edward Almasy <ealmasy () axisdata com> wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2007, at 1:30 PM, Seth wrote:
> > Rigo Wenning <rigo () w3 org> wrote:
> > > Now once the site published the P3P Policy, it is bound by it.
> >
> > What does that mean?
>
> It means that they have made a clear, unambiguous statement about
> what they are doing about privacy, via an established common
> channel.

United Airlines has made clear, unambiguous statements that they
didn't leak my email addresses to spammers.  They were _false_, clear,
unambiguous statements.  That's why I'm questioning the value of just
reporting in some other format what a site claims.

> While very few people will make direct use of raw P3P information,
> having a well-defined and unambiguous format will allow developers
> to implement tools to translate privacy information into plain
> english and provide end-user-level tools routinely accessible to
> mere mortals.

Will they provide tools to prevent a company from lying?

> The clarity that P3P may help bring to the table is (IMHO) far more
> important than immediate considerations over whether sites will
> adhere to their published policies.  Once we have the lever that
> that clarity may help provide, enforcing adherence will become much
> easier.

There's a lot of clarity about spam now.  Adherence to anti-spam
policies isn't very good.

Seth

-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com