Re: WORTH READING CMU Privacy-Enhanced Search Engine Study

["David Farber" <dave () farber net>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Seth [mailto:sethb () panix com] 
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 12:53 PM
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: WORTH READING CMU Privacy-Enhanced Search Engine Study

Rigo Wenning <rigo () w3 org> wrote:

> Now once the site published the P3P Policy, it is bound by it.

What does that mean?

If it violates the policy, Zeus will throw thunderbolts at it?

Violating the policy is a felony that will get prosecuted?  (By whom?)

> This let to many corrections already as watchdogs will look at the
> P3P Policy and will find the leaks and lies. The resulting public
> pressure and interest from regulators is more than enough as a
> thread or sanction.

Why doesn't that work against spammers?

> A scandal is much more expensive/damaging than the usual
> administrative fines in normal privacy cases. (We have examples,
> e.g. us-government drug addiction site using a tracking cookie
> despite a privacy policy claiming the contrary.

And as a result, how many people have been shot/imprisoned/fined?

> The hard enforcement of adhering to the published intentions is a
> social issue. Again, experience was, that those making policies to
> make some browser implementations happy feared the public blame so
> much that when they were caught, they corrected either the policy or
> the behavior or abandoned P3P.

I'm sure there are some legitimate companies that actually obey their
published policies, and fix their actions if a violation is brought to
their attention.  I'm even more certain that there are companies that
won't.

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