Syndicate content Subscribe to the RSS feed  › 
Privacy and identity policy

3 Excellencies

Keith BesgroveGovernments should be concerned about ensuring that there are consumer protections around privacy, around fraud, and around measures to give consumers confidence.

There are many international challenges posed for regulators by the internet.

In a range of applications we increasingly find that our traditional notions of nationally based regulatory structures are partially or wholly irrelevant. To take one example, the growing use of botnets, to mount various forms of criminal and other malicious attacks pose problems for governments. Who do you prosecute when the botnets involve computers in 20 different countries, used to mount attacks in a 21st country which spirit money away to a 22nd country under whose legal framework, nothing illegal is going on?

In June I attended the OECD Ministerial meeting on the Future of the Internet (www.oecd.org/FutureInternet). One speaker who stood out was EU Commissioner Vivian Reading who talked about the pivotal importance of co-regulation with industry based, on a clear recognition of consumer rights. At the same time, the EU has demonstrated a strong willingness to regulate where it believes in cannot achieve effective collaboration with industry - the regulation on global roaming charges being a controversial case in point.

Web 2.0 & rating the Police. A Bruce Schneier perspective

Malcolm Crompton's picture

The transparency debate is nuanced & needs a lot more work.

Applying transparency and ratings to policing raises some fascinating questions that have been around for a long time. In one sense, the case recently put at "Transparency in policing?...or invasion of privacy...risk?" is that a very important group in our society should have applied to it the same logic as it wants applied to the rest of us:  'If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear'.  The reaction, though, is interesting.  Like many professions (legal, accounting, medical etc), arguments come back along the lines of 'we are different & deserve special treatment" - legal professional privilege; doctor-patient relationship etc.

Google recently used the transparency argument in "Using log data to help keep you safe", at Google Public Policy Blog, posted 13 Mar 2008.

David Brin explored the extreme of this logic some years ago in his book "The Transparent Society". For a fascinating review of this book and the "communitarian" counterpoint, see "Privacy please", a book review in Salon magazine, 26 April 1999.

Privacy gains attention over the Christmas New Year break. Does a swallow or two make a Spring?

Malcolm Crompton's picture

We are in an interesting period of leadership change.  In Australia, we elected a new federal government at the end of 2007.  The UK has a new PM & the USA will have a new president by the end of 2008.

Is the privacy debate changing too, reflecting a new mood?

The year 2007 sensitised us to the challenges through massive losses & theft of personal information worldwide and debates over search engine & social networking approaches to the use of personal information. 

The end of 2007 & start of 2008 appears to have taken off from this start point, based on the evidence from a totally unrepresentative sample of 3 recent news stories ...

This all feels a lot more like the debate as it stood before 11 September 2001 and the new Federal government is obviously contemplating change.  Indeed, it amounts to more than a couple of swallows, but it is far too early to see if a new Spring is around the corner where there is a fair allocation of control, risk and accountability in the handling of personal information about us all.

2008 is going to be an interesting year.