My discussion about the relationship between employees and employers seems to have moved Eric Norlin to drop his proposed amendment to the first law of identity… He still has questions, though, like “say my employer tracks my web surfing habits – do i have to explicitly hand that over? surely, my surfing tracks are an attribute of my identity”.
I hope the screenshot below will help convince him that again, the most natural (and defensible) way to organize things is for the employer to ask the employee for consent to track him. That's what we do in these here parts, and it seems to work well enough. I guess if the employee doesn't want to be tracked, he needs to ask for employment in a different department.
That said, I really like Eric's invention of the term “identifiable walk” – though I draw different conclusions about it:
We all *do* things that can be abstracted that can be used to identify us — (this is the infamous tier 3 identity from andre's article)….should we have control over ALL of those attributes? my gut says that would be impossible.
in fact, it may already be that way — we all have an identifiable “walk.” the TSA is testing programs that would use that to identify terrorist types. Should i have to give consent to that camera when i walk in the airport? or is my walking in the airport consent enough?
So now it's on to discuss “Norlin's Walk”.
