Previously when I've seen a set of principles espoused to a government by a group of competitors that don't currently follow those principles, it's been a polite request to "give us all a level playing field" by banning something.
If my leaky memory is correct, an association of competing car dealers asked Canada (or perhaps merely Ontario) to set rules about resetting odometers. Customers strongly distrusted odometer readings in those days, and suspected universal dishonesty by used-car dealers. So they asked for it to be made illegal.
It was widely thought that they wished to give up a self-destructive practice, but feared individual business failures if they didn't all give it up at the same time.
If Google and friends say "snooping should be illegal, even for the police", then they need not engage in a race to the bottom with each other.
Methinks we may need a general mechanism for identifying nutters that's hard to spoof, so that the folks who used to spend their days flaming innocent passers-by on usenet can't just migrate here.
This is probably an instance of a byzantine fault-tolerance problem, as solved by Barbara Liskov. As a bad example, consider displaying one of those little bi-coloured pills one uses for friends and foes, with the numbers voting shown in each side. ONLY if N people vote him "id10t" and N is at least one greater than 3 times the the people who vote him legit, mind you! Generally displaying reputation or friend/foes icons would just lead to flaming about reputations and scores.
There are two items at play here...
1) Server consolidation - when I was at AMD a few years ago, I saw a series of roadmaps showing the predicted consolidation based on hypervisors 300 servers to 30. The immediate thought that went through my mind is "the cost of enterprise CPUs" need to go up otherwise there will be blood in chip market. Servers were the cash cow for the market.
2) Migration to cloud - this is really consolidation mk II. Move to the cloud and rely on focused efforts to migrate, load balance, spin up and spin down services. All with the economy of scale that large datacenters provide. This has hit the OEM manufacturers (HP, Dell, etc) since the larger players in the market can go direct to China with the volumes they need and
Ultimately it is a question of reducing unused capacity. According to some stats (google "datacenter utilization"), 1st party utilization is around 5-10%, cloud utilization is around 20-30%. The two items above really deliver a 1-2 punch to the Server and Chip industry.
They're called "moral" rights to distinguish them from economic rights. In your case, they allow you to control whether your name is on the work or whether you wish a pseudonym used to prevent your name from being mentioned in reference to it (;-))
In Canada they came out of a Criminal Code amendment to prevent plays from being stolen and the author's name changed. The theft was breach of an economic right, the renaming a breach of a moral right.
In countries like Canada, authors have "moral rights" under copyright law, specifically including the right to be be named as the author of a work, even if it is paid for by another. These cannot be waived, and in some specific cases can only be assigned.
One might declare a non-assignable moral right to make available one's work, including for purposes of showing a "portfolio" of one's work, or making scholarly works available to other scholars.
Quaetions tell you what part of the lawyer's arguments need expansion. Sometimes that can mean "you guys need to respond to this" (decision about to go one way), and sometimes questions can mean "are you really serious about this?" (decision about to go the other way).
They use witnesses to get facts, experts to get facts and expert opinion, and lawyers to get logic, then apply facts to the logic and expert opinion. If they were programmers, they'd be doing a transitive closure on ((facts + opinions) * logic) and pruning off all the branches that evaluate to "factually wrong" or "invalid logic". What comes out are prospective solutions, which then get pattern-matched against rules of law and legislation, looking for a fit (:-))
When there isn't a unique answer, they probe for more facts and logical arguments. Thus the questions.
--dave (not totally seriously, but close) c-b
I should be able to have my desktop use my phone and a password to do a 2-factor authentication, and transparently share with my pad, and with the older pad that lives in my office. I should be able to have one reference book open on the pad, a second open on the old pad, and a notepad program and open office open on my desktop, and cut and paste from any of them.
The author of the article does stats, while I write books and programs. I should have some serious support from all my hardware vendors for what I do for a living, instead of phone support for messaging, pad support for "consuming" media and desktop support for doing actual work.
In particular, they need to delete "yesterday's tape" except for events submitted to the human police for a prosecution.
This is what Canadian law requires for business information not needed for explicit, agreed-upon business purposes. Bell, for example, can't divulge my address to a third party without my permission, and must delete it after the business relationship has come to an end.
We may need a law or a decision setting out the limits of what one implicitly consents to in entering a privately owned place open to the public: different jurisdictions are more or less protective of shoppers' privacy in malls, where the problem has first shown up.
There are truly out-of-control entities, such as criminal gangs, but most snoops have to obey laws, and if they are businesses generally chose to do as a cost-avoidance strategy (;-))
This large group of commercial snoops are currently trying to capture as many unhappy people as they can, and within a few years are in line for a harsh slapping about from enraged politicians: see the UK for a picture of what happens when newspapers crack people's cell phones. Now imagine what response you get when they start losing snooped credit card numbers.
Amex is already sensitive to this and related problems seen by their customers, and will issue short-term and single-use credit card numbers for transactions with doubtful merchants. I have every expectation that they will be asked to offer "avatar" cards, and after hemming and hawing, will issue me a card in my pen name, after taking some steps to make sure they can't be blamed if I'm the crook, not the merchant.
Given that, I'll have an avatar on steam with the ability to buy and sell things without exposing who I am. People named "John Smith" already have lots of avatars, all of whom think they're the real John Smith. This will do nicely for anything on-line or credit-card-centric.
Physical presence and photos are a different problem: we have weak laws about what used to be called "database matching", and we may need laws against keeping photos of me paying with a credit card any longer than it takes for the credit to clear. Of course, if I "pay" with a shotgun, I have to expect the pictures to be kept until they're thrown my ass in jail (:-))
Retaining data, and using it without the permission of the person who provided it has been a problem since the printing press was invented. Public libraries found that the were being asked for patron's reading histories, and created the now common policy of retaining the patron-book relationship only until the book was returned or replaced.
Private photos and lifelogs are harder to manage, but less harmful, as there are so very many of them, and are private to that person...