Re: [atlarge-discuss] Authentication Privacy Principles

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

On 21:00 06/06/03, DannyYounger@cs.com said:
> Eight months ago, the Center for Democracy and Technology convened an
> Authentication Privacy Principles Working Group.  It recently released the 
> results of
> that effort which are available at
> http://www.cdt.org/privacy/authentication/030513interim.shtml
Thank you for this link. This report lists six good requirments, I am not 
sure the current lunacy fully  respect:

1) Provide User Control - The informed consent of the individual should be 
obtained before information is used for enrollment, authentication and any 
subsequent uses.

2) Support a Diversity of Services - Individuals should have a choice of 
authentication tools and providers in the marketplace.

3) Use Individual Authentication Only When Appropriate -Authentication 
systems should be designed to authenticate individuals by use of identity 
only when such information is needed to complete the transaction. 
Individual identity need not and should not be a part of all forms of 
authentication.

4) Provide Notice -Individuals should be provided with a clear statement 
about the collection and use of information upon which to make informed 
decisions.

5) Minimize Collection and Storage- Institutions deploying or using 
authentication systems should collect only the information necessary to 
complete the intended authentication function.

6) Provide Accountability - Authentication providers should be able to 
verify that they are complying with applicable privacy practices

I would add that some legal systems like the European, Israelian, 
Argentinian etc. ones are based upon a very simple concept with many 
additional consequences: personal information is proprietary to the person. 
Divulgation of private indormation obtained in trust as in the case of Joey 
Borda is a crime, the same as physically abusing or raping the person.

Not only the divulgation but the drum justice around it and the way it was 
obtained. For example, I don't think there would be real problems in France 
to send SS a few weeks to jail for his demeanor of the last few days and 
why Joop's mails are so upsetting. This may explain why those accustomed to 
the respect of privacy (what means the respect of the real person for us) 
are genuninely chocked by these attitudes - what Members from other legal 
culture may not be?

To the point while I feel there is a growing consensus to think SS only 
does that to ascertain a weak Panelist capacity by terrorism, this may only 
be in his cultural environement some acceptable zeal?

O regiones O mores.
This is also international. This is why I favor - as the Members do - local 
@large structures.
jfc