Re: Terminology

> >I think your earlier example of using geopriv in conjunction with
> >inanimate carriers of targets is an example of where the split between
> >carry and assert matters. The entity (say a shipping container)
> >doesn't care about its location privacy, but its owner may.
>
> It certainly matters in a legal sense. But you can't incorporate
> this into the information flows affecting access decisions driven by
> a privacy policy function. Once the parameters of the function have
> been determined, they can be evaluated by any proxy empowered to do
> so.
>
> We should be clear that the parameters are generated by the owner of
> the location data. But having established that, the owner is not
> directly part of the model. A legal formalism simply doesn't have a
> place in a network model.
>

I think that there is even more complicated case where my company provide
a cell phone with me. The owner of the phone is clearly my company.
Privacy is in a sense "shared" by me and my company. Obviously as a
foundamental human right, I think I can refuse to disclose my location,
whichs is almost identical to the cell phone's location. On the other
hand, even if I would like to dislose my location to someone, the company
may not want me to do it because, for example, if I am a sales man, where
I am may be a trade secret (business territory). Also there are a joint
ownership of location privcay - for example, those who in the same car.
Sorry but I have no clude for these problems....

Regards,

Kenji
Received on Thu Dec 20 10:07:21 2001