Subject: [perpass] Privacy for engineers

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:46:13 +0100

Good reading about the "blind spots" of engineers about privacy:

http://lockstep.com.au/blog/2014/08/28/engineers-and-privacy

---

From: Bob Harold <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 09:12:49 -0400

Good reading, but I cannot agree with "the definition of PII is clear cut".
  Rather "*any* information pertaining to an identifiable individual" is
extremely vague.  And when they want us to try to 'secure' information that
is already 'public', we have to scratch our heads and wonder.
But at least he admits that there are tradeoffs.  The law (or a typical
organization's policy) does not seem to understand that.

Disclaimer: definitely not speaking for my employer.

-- 
Bob Harold

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> dns-privacy mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
>

---

From: Don Blumenthal <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:51:48 +0000

Thanks, Stephane. 

The article is excellent in discussing the intersection of privacy issues and ICT. However, "[o]nline and in privacy law alike, things are very crisp." Maybe they are in Australia. However,  one of the big challenges in the privacy space is that definitions of PI, PII, and similar acronymed (word?) concepts vary widely and may not be spelled at all in some jurisdictions.

I find it curious that Mr. Wilson makes such a categorical statement in this article while linking to another post where he discusses definitional uncertainties. http://lockstep.com.au/blog/2013/09/27/pii-or-not-pii. It was worthwhile following his links to get a full picture.

Don