<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>edisclosure myth or reality? &#187; privacy</title>
	<atom:link href="https://jollyvip.com/edisclosure/tag/privacy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://jollyvip.com/edisclosure</link>
	<description>From litigation to the arbitration regime</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2025 10:14:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>why five principles?</title>
		<link>https://jollyvip.com/edisclosure/2011/08/31/why-five-principles/</link>
		<comments>https://jollyvip.com/edisclosure/2011/08/31/why-five-principles/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 23:51:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2011]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[collusion of]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Data]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lexology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy by Design]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://iedisc.com/?p=256</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have not done a search for the original article or press statements on &#8216;the Commission’s concept for the future EU data privacy framework&#8217; as mentioned in Development and revision of global data privacy and security laws on lexology. Why five principles? This principle &#8211; Privacy by design -  sounds great with the 3 words [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have not done a search for the original article or press statements on &#8216;the Commission’s concept for the future EU data privacy framework&#8217; as mentioned in <a title="Development and revision of global data privacy and security laws" href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6c73a0f9-574b-482c-9a65-ab98ce9fff9b" target="_blank">Development and revision of global data privacy and security laws</a><br />
on lexology.</p>
<p>Why five principles?</p>
<p>This principle &#8211; <strong>Privacy by design</strong> -  sounds great with the 3 words title which is rather arty and catchy like a company&#8217;s business motto.</p>
<p>The description &#8211; &#8216;<em><strong>New</strong></em> <strong><em>technical</em></strong> developments have to observe data privacy requirements at  an <em><strong>early development stage</strong></em>, thus permitting the introduction of data  protecting hardware and software&#8217;.</p>
<p>Only &#8216;new&#8217; technical developments and at an &#8216;early&#8217; development stage?</p>
<p>Just another play with words for my own amusement.</p>
<p>In terms of designing hardware and software for data privacy and/or protection, the play with words will not help software folks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://jollyvip.com/edisclosure/2011/08/31/why-five-principles/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>to do with technology or not?</title>
		<link>https://jollyvip.com/edisclosure/2011/08/18/to-do-with-technology-or-not/</link>
		<comments>https://jollyvip.com/edisclosure/2011/08/18/to-do-with-technology-or-not/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:57:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2011]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[collusion of]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Community]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Data]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barcelona]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sociotech]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://iedisc.com/?p=251</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Is everything I do, to do with technology? When I am asleep, I guess I have nothing to do with technology unless I am in a technological related dream. This will probably be the end of my spirited being. Here is an interesting question (or a dream question?) raised by someone at the Sociotechnology and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is everything I do, to do with technology?</p>
<p>When I am asleep, I guess I have nothing to do with technology unless I am in a technological related dream. This will probably be the end of my spirited being.</p>
<p>Here is an interesting question (or a dream question?) raised by someone at the Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development (sociotech) Group. I see nothing wrong in raising the question in my blog here. Any objections and concerns, please post here or contact cher at iedisc.com</p>
<p>Gosh! has technology got me to be so so cautious?!</p>
<p>The question coming from the sociotech group:</p>
<p><strong><em>What do we really mean by technology?</em></strong></p>
<p>This question sound similar to several questions raised by law/policy makers during an ediscovery conference I attended in 2009 in Barcelona.</p>
<p>Substitute the word <em><strong>‘technology’</strong></em> with <strong><em>‘processing’ or ‘privacy’ or ‘consent’</em></strong> (as in data protection), we end up with more dreamy questions with little common understanding or agreement, especially when discussing on ‘what are the real issues with cross border ediscovery?’.</p>
<p>The questions were based on this statement (or an opinion?):</p>
<p>There is no legal basis (or justification) for ‘processing’ which includes transferring, viewing, accessing etc, of data in ediscovery across the Atlantic (i.e. the Europe &amp; US divide). What? No viewing, i.e. I can’t even open-view the file/data !</p>
<p>I guess the answers were not in the questions being raised, as the only answer that the policy makers were seeking to get assurance is: ‘how safe is my (personal) data’?</p>
<p>So, <strong><em>‘What do we really mean by technology?</em></strong>’</p>
<p>My dreamy reply: ‘technology’ is a beast and also a non beast, a thing and also a thingy.</p>
<p>What is your view(s)?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://jollyvip.com/edisclosure/2011/08/18/to-do-with-technology-or-not/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Two different approaches to privacy</title>
		<link>https://jollyvip.com/edisclosure/2009/10/14/two-different-approaches-to-privacy/</link>
		<comments>https://jollyvip.com/edisclosure/2009/10/14/two-different-approaches-to-privacy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:18:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2009]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Asia Pacific]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[china]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cloud computing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[my research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://iedisc.com/2009/10/14/two-different-approaches-to-privacy/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Since I can&#8217;t tweet I will use my blog to post. Research into trust model(s) in the cloud and a new credit privacy rule (still in draft according to the report) in China.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since I can&#8217;t tweet I will use my blog to post.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091013162746.htm">Research i</a>nto trust model(s) in the cloud and a new <a href="http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-10/14/content_8790079.htm">credit privacy rule</a> (still in draft according to the report) in China.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://jollyvip.com/edisclosure/2009/10/14/two-different-approaches-to-privacy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>My first blog from Beijing</title>
		<link>https://jollyvip.com/edisclosure/2009/10/12/my-first-blog-from-beijing/</link>
		<comments>https://jollyvip.com/edisclosure/2009/10/12/my-first-blog-from-beijing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:10:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asia Pacific]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Asia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beijing 2009]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://iedisc.com/2009/10/12/my-first-blog-from-beijing/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am slowly getting used to not having ‘full access’ to the world wide web in the widest and wildest sense of the word in the so called connected world of information. I have no access to my own websites (the Ning.com social sites are blocked!) and no posting on Facebook and Twitter. Gosh, what [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am slowly getting used to not having ‘full access’ to the world wide web in the widest and wildest sense of the word in the so called connected world of information.</p>
<p>I have no access to my own websites (the Ning.com social sites are blocked!) and no posting on Facebook and Twitter. Gosh, what next?!</p>
<p>Am I missing much? Strangely…nope. I guess I have been too busy with being a foreigner in a strange country.<br />
Just caught a report at <a href="http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/security/0,39044215,62058541,00.htm">ZDNet about Asia</a> (not blocked!). I reckon China’s lawmakers have no inkling of copying the European model.<br />
No access, no breaches, no privacy challenges so no need for privacy laws?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://jollyvip.com/edisclosure/2009/10/12/my-first-blog-from-beijing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Viacom v. YouTube &#8211; ESI re-definition ?</title>
		<link>https://jollyvip.com/edisclosure/2008/07/14/viacom-v-youtube-esi-re-definition/</link>
		<comments>https://jollyvip.com/edisclosure/2008/07/14/viacom-v-youtube-esi-re-definition/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 01:25:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[YouTube]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://iedisc.com/?p=139</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A mix bag of copyrights, privacy, databases, ediscovery and the judge being accused of &#8220;lack of tech cluefulness,&#8221; read on&#8230;Viacom v youTube]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A mix bag of copyrights, privacy, databases, ediscovery and the judge being accused of &#8220;lack of tech cluefulness,&#8221;</p>
<p>read on&#8230;<a href="http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/copyright/viacom-v-youtube">Viacom v youTube</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://jollyvip.com/edisclosure/2008/07/14/viacom-v-youtube-esi-re-definition/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
