Talk:Privacy by design: Difference between revisions
what to do with "trilogy" section? |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
[[Privacy by Design#Trilogy of Applications|This section]] doesn't make sense. It doesn't seem to actually describe what it says it does, and in fact reads a lot like the marketing material found on [[Ann Cavoukian|Ann Cavoukian's]] own page. See [[Talk:Ann Cavoukian#Changes made by 38.112.93.138]]. I don't want to remove it, because it might actually be useful, but not in its current form. |
[[Privacy by Design#Trilogy of Applications|This section]] doesn't make sense. It doesn't seem to actually describe what it says it does, and in fact reads a lot like the marketing material found on [[Ann Cavoukian|Ann Cavoukian's]] own page. See [[Talk:Ann Cavoukian#Changes made by 38.112.93.138]]. I don't want to remove it, because it might actually be useful, but not in its current form. |
||
-[[Special:Contributions/69.196.184.175|69.196.184.175]] ([[User talk:69.196.184.175|talk]]) 21:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC) |
-[[Special:Contributions/69.196.184.175|69.196.184.175]] ([[User talk:69.196.184.175|talk]]) 21:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC) |
||
The usefulness is probably in the notion that PbD does not work if it comes down to only applying ICT measures, but that it should address comprehensive measures in a range of aspects of an organisation, product or system life cycle. But that's not what it says now. [[User:Jrest|Jrest]] ([[User talk:Jrest|talk]]) 16:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC) |
|||
=General Structure= |
|||
The general structure of this article is difficult to determine because the concept has different meanings in different contexts (e.g. Canada vs USA vs EU) and because there is not even documented consensus on a greatest common denominator of the meaning. [[User:Jrest|Jrest]] ([[User talk:Jrest|talk]]) 16:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC) |
|||
=Biases= |
|||
Many parties -me included- may be biased because the concept is part of active research and policy development. An example of this bias is the tendency of North American legislation to let business themselves work out what this concept should mean (evolutionary approach) while EU tends to take a more regulatory approach, although this has not yet instantiated in this case. [[User:Jrest|Jrest]] ([[User talk:Jrest|talk]]) 16:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:06, 26 January 2014
Trilogy of Applications
This section doesn't make sense. It doesn't seem to actually describe what it says it does, and in fact reads a lot like the marketing material found on Ann Cavoukian's own page. See Talk:Ann Cavoukian#Changes made by 38.112.93.138. I don't want to remove it, because it might actually be useful, but not in its current form. -69.196.184.175 (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The usefulness is probably in the notion that PbD does not work if it comes down to only applying ICT measures, but that it should address comprehensive measures in a range of aspects of an organisation, product or system life cycle. But that's not what it says now. Jrest (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
General Structure
The general structure of this article is difficult to determine because the concept has different meanings in different contexts (e.g. Canada vs USA vs EU) and because there is not even documented consensus on a greatest common denominator of the meaning. Jrest (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Biases
Many parties -me included- may be biased because the concept is part of active research and policy development. An example of this bias is the tendency of North American legislation to let business themselves work out what this concept should mean (evolutionary approach) while EU tends to take a more regulatory approach, although this has not yet instantiated in this case. Jrest (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)