Browsing the Web has also, to date, usually been an anonymous activity. Individuals sometimes choose to remain anonymous to safeguard their privacy, for example, when browsing in a department store or purchasing an "adult" magazine. It recognizes the possibility of "privacy royalties" and describes a few of the technological mechanisms available to implement these controls. This paper first describes how accountability and anonymity can be balanced to allow user control as much as possible, community norms when the user desires conflict, and (finally) government regulation when the norms of the communities differ. Less law and more user choice is possible now technology can provide every user with controls fine-tuned for the balance of privacy and accessibilty that they prefer. There does not necessarily have to be only one privacy regime. If there are subgroups in society, or countries, with differing ideas about the answers to these questions, technology can, to a large extent, accomodate each group. Specifically, we must decide when to allow anonymous transactions and when to require accountability. We have to decide when and under what conditions to give out personal information. In order to implement "privacy" in a computer system, we need a more precise definition. In recent years, these claims have expanded to include the right to keep one's trail of sites visited on the World Wide Web confidential. Individuals claim a right of privacy for an enormously wide range of issues from the right to practice contraception or have an abortion to the right to keep bank records confidential". In addition to the generally accepted definition of privacy as "the right to be left alone," privacy has become a "broad, all-encompassing concept that envelops a whole host of human concerns about various forms of intrusive behavior, including wiretapping, surreptitious physical surveillance, and mail interception. eTrust: A Description of the eTrust ModelĬomputer Technology to Balance Accountability and Anonymity in Self-regulatory Privacy Regimes (1)Ĭyberspace Policy Institute, School of Engineering and Applied Science Labeling Practices for Privacy Protectionĭ. The Role of Technology in Self-regulatory Privacy RegimesĬ. Computer Technology to Balance Accountability and Anonymity in Self-regulatory Privacy Regimesī. This week we have Damien Riehl from Fastcase and SALI discussing the need for a true organized method of allowing legal vendors, attorneys, clients, and governments to label and share information.A. This week we continue our crystal ball answers from the recent Legal Value Network eXperience conference in Chicago. Executive Summaries of Pacesetter Reports Available Here.Tomek Jankowski also sees a future filled with challenges over the next few years with financial, social, and global political issues bringing back old Cold War problems than not many lawyers today experienced first-hand like he did. Sometimes, it is as simple as talking with your clients. We discuss some specific examples of firms going to great lengths to improve their interactions with clients, but that Jankowski reminds us that it doesn't take a Moon Shot project to improve overall satisfaction with your clients. In a recent ALM Pacesetter survey, the report found "that innovators among professional services providers are grappling less with technology installation and more with process and culture reengineering." We sit down with one of the people behind that report, Tomek Jankowski, Director, ALM Intelligence Pacesetter Research, and dive into the ways law firms and in-house legal departments are working to change the cultural roadblocks to advance innovation and improve overall client experiences.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |