Yesterday I listened into "The Great Privacy Debate." I won't summarize it here, that having already been done by Jeffrey Henning and Lenny Murphy with Lenny, as we might expect, being somewhat more argumentative than the less impassioned Jeffrey. However, I will say that in terms of substance I didn't feel the debate went much beyond what's already been said in other venues and the answers to the questions posed to attendees at the end suggested that no point of view triumphed over the other.
All in all, the event had a sort of old bulls/young Turks feel to it. I was reminded of the scene in A Man for All Seasons where Thomas More and the young Turk Will Roper, More's future son-in-law and biographer, argue about the importance of the rule of law.
Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Comments
2 responses to “The maybe not-so-great privacy debate”
While I like to be given credit for other people’s work and ideas, in this case it was Tamara Barber who wrote up the debate. Though I share her dispassion.
For as St. Thomas More and others of Henry the VII’s court learnt, once you set the precedent for executing your enemies, it isn’t long before you face the executioner yourself.
Several people have commented that one weakness of the debate was that none of the speakers changed their position and the positions covered familiar ground.
However, I do not think that the main purpose of the debate was to provide the trade bodies with a chance to recant or the chosen sceptics a chance to find out they were wrong after all. What the debate has done, I hope, is:
a) More people are aware of the plans from the trade bodies and some of the concerns.
b) The trade bodies and the sceptics should now be aware that lots of people do not agree with them, and there are plenty of people who answered don’t know to questions about the wisdom of the proposed codes and guidelines.