Re: [GNU/consensus] [RFC][SH] User Data Manifesto

[Frank Karlitschek]

On 07.01.2013, at 07:05, Hugo Roy <address@hidden> wrote:

> Le dimanche 06 janvier 2013 à 21:19 -0500, Richard Stallman a écrit :
>>    If you're free, you can think for yourself and do things with
>>    your body, so you "own" your body and you "own" things you make with
>>    your hands.
>> 
>> To say you "own" your body seems to imply you should be able to sell it.
> 
> Yes, it _seems_ to, if you think of owning as property. But owning can
> have other meanings. For instance, I think it could be valid to use the
> expression "their own data" when we speak of users' data. It does not
> necessarily mean we imply people have some kind of property over that
> data but that is possible, for instance if the data is totally meant to
> be private, I believe I have some property right on it. This is already
> the case on my own laptop because the laptop is my property, but I think
> it should also be the case when my private data is somewhere else.

This was my original idea that the stuff that I write on my laptop are my own 
stuff.
Than later I perhaps do the conscious decision to publish and release some of it
under free licenses on the internet. But there are definitely things like 
letters
to my girlfriend that I don't want to publish under a free license because they 
are private.

But let's switch to "private" instead of "owning" if this are better words.


>>    I think the crucial point should not be about "owning" but really about
>>    privacy
>> 
>> I agree.
>> 
>>          /publicity.
>> 
>> In English, publicity and privacy are not antonyms.
> 
> I did not say that being a public person means you cannot have privacy
> any more, but when you publish something, it sure cannot be considered
> private any more. So they are antonyms in some way. Depending on things
> you publish, you change the "state of affairs" of your privacy.
> 
> If you think the whole point is only about "privacy" then I do not
> understand what is the object that we are trying to reach consensus on.
> I thought, reading Hellekin's manifesto, that we are trying to help free
> software projects reach consensus to support social networks.
> 
> Social networks imply some publicity. If you think social networking is
> only about what's totally private between close friends, you're living
> before the Web.
> 
> So we have to address privacy /and/ publicity. (I believe there is a
> continuum between them, not that things are totally binary.)
> 
> -- 
> Hugo Roy 
>  French Coordinator, FSFE      chat: address@hidden
>  Support the FSFE, sign up ↓    mobile: +336 08 74 13 41
>  https://www.fsfe.org/support 
>