Should we create some sort of a glossary?

Editorial point:
´I do not like the use of “we” in the article and probably others as well. There is a mixup between “we” as prvact and “we” as users/data providers. I understand that of course we are both - but sometime one is meant, sometimes the other. For someone reading it, that is not part of privact (yet), this may be confusing. I think we should only use “we” if we talk about privact.

I suggest “users” for users/data providers. “data provider” sounds quite technical and may not be understood by everyone at first. Or even “citizien” to make clear that this is not about users of a specfic application, but rather a use case in everyday’s life.

It is just becoming more clear to me as I write this:

  • Citizien: When we talk about people as part of society and empowering them to free themselves of data surveillance.
  • User: When we talk about use cases from a users point of view. E.g. how it works for someone who is using one more more tools that are privact compliant.
  • Data provider: When we talk about the internal working and concepts, in particular the data model, access to it, …

I think it would be helpfull if we try to stick to this convention to make the texts more accessible for newcomers.

Good point. Thinking about this a bit - there are really a lot of "us"es and "we"s around. Let me give it a go:

  • Citizen (individual data provider)
  • Society
  • Initiatives (working on digital privacy / de-centralized data storage)
  • Free software projects
  • NGOs
  • Researchers
  • Service Providers
  • Our community here
  • The e.V (to be established)
  • Our NGO we aim to establish

User is kind of orthogonal to this for me. As (almost) every role / aspect / sub-group of “us” also has to interact with the technical system at some point, we might just add “User” to every role whenever talking about this.

As want to be a platform to discuss and unite, I think all these are valid aspects of “us” - and we need to be precise who we talk about, when we talk about us… Perhaps the start to some sort of glossary?

Glossary is a great idea, for people first reading up to it, but also for ourselves, so that we use consistent language.

I would like to start high level and drill downwards:
Let’s begin with the big roles:

  • Data users/consumers
  • Users or citizens
  • privact
  • NGO
    For each we should have a short definition, what roles they play in this and how they benefit from this.

Still having trouble with data providers. Besides it being too technical, are we not distinguishing between the user and the various sources she owns? E.g. is a biometric clock not the data provider as might be some app the user is using? Or do we use a different term for that?

What we are definitely missing is a definition what we consider “data” to be. I like to have a very broad definition, around the line:

Every data that gets produced - directly or indirectly - through users actions is personal data. This data belongs to the user, but the creating service / source always has the right to read it.

And yes “data provider” is not a good term. Currently I think “Citizen” might be a good name for the person participating in the system and hence being the source and owner of her data and “Service” or “Service provider” refers to the tool / organization that puts data into the pool.

Create a gloassary! Otherwise we will have to write everything twice.

1 Like

This site needs a glossary. 'nough said. :slight_smile:

My suggestion is to use Tags for this. I created a tag “glossary”. Post any glossary posts in “Introduction” and tag them accordingly.