BT 2006 trials of Phorm

[Ian Batten]

On 06 Jun 08, at 1251, Richard Clayton wrote:
>
> Rather like the greengrocer suddenly having a special offer on carrots
> because the village postmistress, doubling as the switchboard  
> operator,
> heard you nattering on the phone yesterday about how you might make a
> stew for hubbie this evening...

Step outside the world of security departments.  A lot of people would  
say ``So, you mean I get cheap carrots?''

Another example would be the bank deciding to charge you double for  
travel insurance because the village postmistress, doubling as the  
switchboard operator, heard you nattering on the phone yesterday about  
how your brother who lives in Canada had taken up snow-boarding and  
misunderstood.

A lot of people have a conditional attitude to privacy: they're  
prepared to sell it for small sums of money, and apply a ``what harm  
have I suffered?'' calculus to breaches.  Privacy as an abstract  
concept doesn't resonate.  Which is why ``those with nothing to hide''  
has such traction: privacy in many peoples' minds equates to ``things  
you should make public but keep secret for your own advantage'', not  
helped by the regular whines about ``privacy'' from politicians which  
_are_ entirely about self-interest.

I don't think that abstract privacy had, or has, broad appeal.  We  
need to make the risks more concrete, demonstrating actual harm beyond  
``your privacy was invaded''.  Claims that, say, IP numbers are  
private information and any processing of them is a prima facie breach  
of privacy are a tough row to hoe.

ian