[governance] So Who (or What) is Managing Privacy for/by the 1 Billion+

Thu Dec 27 23:16:14 EST 2012

Hi David

From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org] 
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 7:52 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] So Who (or What) is Managing Privacy for/by the 1
Billion+

Michael,

On Dec 27, 2012, at 7:30 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

Life is too short to play silly word games.

Agreed but those sorts of activities seem to consume a huge amount of
time/money (e.g., see WCIT and/or what does "enhanced cooperation" really
mean? :)).  

[MG>] Agreed.

However, in this context, the point I was hinting at is that there is no
such thing (as far as I know) of a "global Internet" company -- every
company is constrained by the laws of the country (or countries) in which it
operates.  I'm not a a lawyer but I don't think the Internet creates a new
trans-national legal regime for companies, hence the distinction you appear
to be trying to draw seems specious.

[MG>] I'm not a lawyer either nor a privacy expert but I'll refer back to
the earlier four points I made in responding to Michael Leibrandt concerning
the need to adjust current institutions to respond to the transformational
changes that the Internet is bringing about. I made those points in the
context of taxation but I think they apply equally to issues of privacy.

1. globalization including in the transfer and sale of immaterial (virtual
or virtualized) goods and services (or privacy and the capacity for massive
accumulation, and processing of information across multiple jurisdictions
and seemingly unconnected data basis and information sources) is becoming
transformative both in volume and in substance as a result of  the
Internet... National administrative and political regimes (including in
taxation and privacy) are struggling to keep up and in many cases appear to
be falling behind--hence the current complaints from largely OECD countries
concerning the tax related behaviours of companies like Google and Facebook.

2. a further effect of the Internet is to render national boundaries much
much more porous/fluid/transparent/immaterial than previously. While some
corporations (and individuals) are massively able to capitalize on this;
these appear to be restricted to only a very few countries who in turn
appear to be sufficiently well positioned and resourced to profit while
others lack sufficient resources to intervene or even have oversight over
these processes let alone ensure significant local benefits (or the means to
intervene on behalf of the interests of its citizens including in areas such
privacy). This suggests the need for some sort of global oversight mechanism
since no single national regime is able to effectively respond in these
areas.

3. the issue under discussion here is less whether past behaviours were
legal or not (leaving aside the ethics of not paying ones' "fair share" or
having terms and conditons of service to which customers sign on) but
whether certain actions/interventions are either deliberately or by
happenstance directed towards a "political" intervention so as to preclude
the type of globalized "Hands On" actions that might be warranted given the
changing legal, taxation and other circumstances that the Internet is
precipitating.

4. Internet enabled globalized and digitized communications; commerce;
production, management and distribution all indicate the need for an equally
globalized set of institutions and actions in support of a globalized public
interest including in the area of taxation (and privacy) but more broadly
concerning the distribution of the benefits (and costs and risks) of these
processes.

 Facebook with roughly a billion users on the Internet is NOT a global
internet company?

Facebook is, as far as I know, a US company that services an international
customer base and as such is subject to US laws regarding how they do
business (I'll admit I haven't read their terms and conditions in detail to
see if their legal venue varies depending on country of use).

Facebook choosing to play endless incomprehensible games with its privacy
settings sufficient to confuse (and outrage) even its most inside of
insiders doesn't raise "privacy" issues.?

It might raise privacy issues but it does not raise _right to privacy_
issues.  Your rights to privacy are not removed by Facebook changing their
terms and conditions.  You have the ultimate right to privacy by not
subjecting yourself to their endless incomprehensible games.

Would you prefer the government (whose? see my "silly word games" above)
impose restrictions on how Facebook can change their terms and conditions?

[MG>] Best

M

Regards,

-drc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121227/dc9d76b7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t