Is online privacy a right or a privilege?

Yeah, I haven't been able to recreate it either.

 

OK. I tested in a relative's computer, running Google Chrome 17.x.x79, and I was able to install extensions while still blocking Google Analytics.

But, the users still can't upgrade Google Chrome, if they block Google Analytics.

 

Is there a specific error or just a crash?

I can't test until there's an update =p

 

Yeah, there's an error message. I don't recall the exact message, but I think it's something it couldn't connect to the update server or something like that. Some error 7, I think. I didn't write it down.

 

No problem. I'll try to recreate that.

edit: Just successfully updated with it all blocked. I'll give it another go later I guess.

 

The study suggests that online privacy is neither a right nor a privilege - it is a commodity.

http://www.enisa.europa.eu/activities/identity-and-trust/library/deliverables/monetising-privacy

 

Privacy (of which online privacy is a subset) can't be a commodity unless someone has rights to sell it. In modern democratic societies, that's individuals. In feudal societies, it's the aristocracy.

 

One's personal info/data can't be a commodity...one's material possessions are.

 

This thread does demonstrate on thing, namely how hard it is to define privacy.

 

Not really. Privacy is the ability to do or say something without unnecessary interference in the form of being tracked/watched. By unnecessary I mean web companies tracking people so they can hawk their products, and governments restricting access and spying on users "just in case".

 

Defining privacy as an ability doesn't seem sufficient either. This seems to be the problem with trying to regulate it, the inability to accurately define the term itself without using something more concrete (such as personal info) as a reference to apply it to.

In an age where information is bought and sold, personal info is a commodity, whether we like it or not.
Seems to me the simplest definition for privacy would be:
A controlled impediment to the access to private information, data, etc.
In order for any impediment to information flow to be effective, it has to remain under the control of the individual, company, etc that is the source of that information. No matter what we as individuals might want to call it (a right, privilege, ability, commodity, etc), nothing can guarantee or even offer privacy. Only the barriers we erect and maintain can do that.

 

Now we're getting down to it. Defining (online) privacy. Bit difficult in an evolving situation but let's see.

 

Some definitions/references for "privacy":

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/privacy?q=privacy

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/privacy

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/privacy

http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?query=privacy&title=21st

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/privacy?q=privacy

Online Guide to Privacy Resources: https://epic.org/privacy/privacy_resources_faq.html

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/privacy/

https://www.eff.org/issues/privacy

 

The bill of rights does not expressly grant a "right to privacy" as that's somewhat vague, but it does explicitly state that, to paraphrase, if times are changing and the constitution/bor doesn't cover everything, give the rights to the people.

There is also implied privacy, and the laws actually get very subjective with this. If you're a public figure you give up your implied privacy in a lot of ways. If you're in a public area you give up your implied privacy in a lot of ways.

edit: implied privacy = reasonable expectation of privacy

 

These word definitions and parsing are all very good and quite interesting.

BUT if we return to the subject question for a minute:

Answer:

In reality it is neither, it is a myth.

As soon as I post anything on the www it is no longer private. Oh I know we can make it hard for those prying eyes to see my information and I'm all for door locks and moats and laser activated alarms but we have no way to ensure our rights in the www world.

 

From DuckDuckGo:

 

I think "control" is an important and useful term, but of course it has to be control in a practical, meaningful sense. One can "control" what information they reveal, etc by never revealing any information. For example, by simply not using the Internet at all. I don't think that is sufficiently fine grained control. By extension, I don't think it is a simple matter of access to information but also use of information. Practically speaking, it is impossible to share information while maintaining control over that information. You can't truly control what the recipient does with it. However, that doesn't mean there aren't opportunities to control some aspects. It is clearly better to privately and very strongly encrypt information before allowing any other parties access to (the encrypted form of) it. They or someone else who gained access to it via them could always keep a copy and at some point in time use (break-throughs in) cracking to fully expose it. Perhaps temporary improvements in control are still better than no improvements in control though.

 

Privacy per se is a right. Two of the dictionary definitions make this clear, and most likely others would too...so we're examining the question of whether being online surrenders/negates that right. I believe it makes no difference, off or online.
The problem arises due to the reality that it's more difficult to protect (control unwanted access) one's privacy due to having internet access.
So it all boils down to security...you can leave your windows open, front door open, and curtains open...and your privacy (and more) is then at risk.
Same online...no security (software and practices) you're very vulnerable. But if you have strong security on your computer, and proceed with caution, then your online privacy (your right) becomes protected and less vulnerable or open to theft/exposure.

edit: copy (minimal)

 

It may be a right as defined by a dictionary. What will be important is the legal definition and how that plays out, across geographies and over time.

 

That will certainly be and is important.

But not to rain on the rights parade again there are by laws in this city against jay walking, running a light and spitting on the street. BUT they are NOT enforceable. 1 out of 10000 face a fine. And even then they just go out and do it again.

If you have private information and who doesn't, don 't store it on a www connected computer or the cloud which is what again? A distant HOST which you have zero control over.

 

Everyone has the right to the privilage of online privacy.

Immunity from online encroachments to that privilege from that right to online privacy,

is the responsibility of each and every individual connected to the World Wide Web.

Online privacy is an responsibility.


HKEY1952

 

Not everything is lost for you U.S folks... at least if you're children...

An article I saw mentioned by ronjor.

The Federal Trade Commission also alleged in its complaint against RockYou that RockYou violated the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act Rule (COPPA Rule) in collecting information from approximately 179,000 children.

requires it to pay a $250,000 civil penalty

It comes with a price, though... Quite cheap... ~ $1.40 per head. That's how much a child's privacy is worth in the U.S.

 

In discussing "online privacy", I tend to focus on surveillance. I don't focus on the effectiveness of court orders in removing objectionable content. (-http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=2034684#post2034684) That sort of "privacy" seems more like censorship. But I do get that said objectionable content may have been obtained through a breach of privacy.

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/28/facebook_employer_passwords_amendment/

 

It's good they paid a fine, but again all that does is create a cost of doing their nasty business. $1.40 a head? That's a joke for a penalty IMHO.

Shutting their site down, and a year in jail for the CEO would be better.