thanks to dennis for the points he raises re: use of 'property' in the
org name which are very important... it's tempting to want to gain some
cover and potential power w/ the cloak of 'property' but i too think
it's exactly the wrong direction to go in... and i had the same reaction
to the EFF item i've appended below that apparently sees as 'progress'
the day when someone's net identity has a proper price tag on it -- so
they can sue on that basis... i'm sure they would use the same kind of
'fight fire w/ fire' logic in defending that... but it seems WAY off to
me... (a question in passing: does anyone know when EFF, that had and
has 'good people' involved, lost its way? and had the esther and clone
contingent take over?)...
in any case, as mentioned on the list, coming from the twin directions
of an appeal to open-ness and democratic/fair representation of the
'atomized' Individuals on the one hand, and a vigorous defense of both
Individual privacy and 'net free speech' -- incl. freedom of other
'expressions', including freedom of fair competition and fairly
regulated exchange-- on the other, gives us a powerful point of
departure that is completely distinguished from the screeching of the
'intellectual property' crowd that is trying (ultimately failing) to
maintain a 19th century 'materialist' stance, and grasp on their
'goods', against the whole tide of network society virtuality and its
various implications and aspects...
more on 'Names' later
mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
[h2o-discuss] Propertization creeping in from a different
direction.
Date:
Thu, 17 Jun 1999 16:54:09 -0400
From:
"Kenneth L. Carson" <CARSON@srbc.com>
To:
h2o-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
CC:
wilbanks@law.harvard.edu
If the thrust of EFF's new project to protect privacy, as described in
this article, supports thinking about everything as packets of
property with price tags attached, then isn't this damage to the
opencode ethos, from "friendly fire," considering the source? (BTW I
appreciated Robert Thau's post but haven't digested it well enough to
respond.)
Putting a Price on Our Internet
Identities
By Renee Deger
The Recorder/Cal Law
June 14, 1999
In more moribund moments, many life insurance
policyholders have been known to joke bitterly
about how much they'd be worth dead.
Unfortunately, they have less of a clue of what
they're worth alive, says one longtime plaintiffs
lawyer.
That's too bad, because marketing and retail
companies are making a killing at dealing in the
habits and preferences of living people --
information people often simply give away,
knowingly or not.
That cloud of ignorance is about to clear, and the
average person may soon have a better idea of
what they're worth as individuals.
The San Francisco-based Internet think tank
Electronic Frontier Foundation is embarking on
an effort to put a price on the average person's
identity so that people can sue for damages if
their privacy is invaded -- especially their privacy
as Web surfers.
"An important part for an individual to negotiate
with a Web site is the total cost of ownership [of
themselves]," says Tara Lemmey, head of EFF.
Still in its infancy, the effort to value
individualism
will be based in large part on how much money
companies pay for customer information, and how
much companies score for selling it.
"How many times is [an individual profile of a]
person selling, what's the value each time it's
used, at what point does it decay -- that
translates to what it's worth to a consumer,"
Lemmey says. <snip>
http://www.lawnewsnetwork.com/practice/techlaw/news/A2327-1999Jun14.html
Kenneth L. Carson, Esq.
Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C.
101 Merrimac St.
Boston, MA 02114-4737
(617) 227-3030 telephone
(617) 523-4001 facsimile
carson@srbc.com E-mail
-
This message was sent via the IDNO-DISCUSS mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno-discuss" to
majordomo@idno.org. For more information, see http://www.idno.org/