ElectronicjournalofcomparaTiveLaw,vol.8.3(october2004),<http://www.ejcl.org/> computing environments. Ubiquitous computing will create a context-aware environment in which, by means of the coordinated use of databases, sensors, micro-devices and software agents, numerous systems scan our environment for data and serve us with particular information, based on certain notions about what is appropriate for us as unique individual persons given the particulars of daily life and context. Some thus argue that ubiquitous systems will to a large extent structure and determine our daily life, mediating our identities, social relations and social power. 8 Not only will our homes and offices become public places but our social identities will do so as well Given these and other developments in the area of pervasive' computing, the discussion about protecting personal data must become a discussion about how individuals are typified (upon what social ontology with what goal? ) and who has the instruments and power to do so. 9 In this sense, personal data protection is not about something(i.e. personal data)that can be owned; it has everything to do with position, social ordering, roles, individual status and freedom. Therefore, privacy protection in our present-day society which personal data are used and to monitor the data impression that individuals are Ae presumes that we have the capability to know about typifying people and to control th process. It requires the availability of instruments that enable awareness of the context in exhibiting to others. 0 In other words, the discussion on adequate mechanisms for the protection of personal data must be a discussion on whether, and to what extent, the statistical models, profiles and algorithms that are used to generate knowledge about our individual behaviour, social and economic position as well as personal interests belong in the publi domain. 2I The commodification of our identities and behaviour does not need a property rights debate with respect to individual and isolated personal data; it requires a debate on the role of law in provid ing the necessary instruments to know and to control the way in which our identities are made See, e.g., the various papers presented at the workshop on Socially -Informed Design of privacy Enhancing Solutions, 4th Intemational Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (UBICOMP 02), Goteborg. SwedenSeptember2002;availablethroughshttp:/guirberkeleyedu/pubs/ubicomp2002/privacyworksho See Philips(2005) Shaping Socio-Technical Ubiquitous Computing Systems'(2002), avalableat Ors: Understandingand 20 Ibid. See also David H. Nguyen and Elizabeth D Mynatt, "Privacy mire <http:llawixoticccatatlgausdnguven/writings/PrivacyMirrorsndf Moreover, individuals should be able to contest that certa in determ inations are m ade, to object to certa in use and to ask for alternative usElectronic Journal of Comparative Law, vol. 8.3 (October 2004), <http://www.ejcl.org/> 7 computing environments. Ubiquitous computing will create a context-aware environment in which, by means of the coordinated use of databases, sensors, micro-devices and software agents, numerous systems scan our environment for data and serve us with particular information, based on certain notions about what is appropriate for us as unique individual persons given the particulars of daily life and context. Some thus argue that ubiquitous systems will to a large extent structure and determine our daily life, mediating our identities, social relations and social power. 18 Not only will our homes and offices become public places, but our social identities will do so as well. Given these and other developments in the area of ‘pervasive’ computing, the discussion about protecting personal data must become a discussion about how individuals are typified (upon what social ontology, with what goal?) and who has the instruments and power to do so.19 In this sense, personal data protection is not about something (i.e. personal data) that can be owned; it has everything to do with position, social ordering, roles, individual status and freedom. Therefore, privacy protection in our present-day society presumes that we have the capability to know about typifying people and to control this process. It requires the availability of instruments that enable awareness of the context in which personal data are used and to monitor the data impression that individuals are exhibiting to others.20 In other words, the discussion on adequate mechanisms for the protection of personal data must be a discussion on whether, and to what extent, the statistical models, profiles and algorithms that are used to generate knowledge about our individual behaviour, social and economic position as well as personal interests belong in the public domain.21 The commodification of our identities and behaviour does not need a property rights debate with respect to individual and isolated personal data; it requires a debate on the role of law in providing the necessary instruments to know and to control the way in which our identities are made. 18 See, e.g., the various papers presented at the workshop on Socially-Informed Design of Privacy￾Enhancing Solutions, 4th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (UBICOMP 02), Göteborg, Sweden, September 2002; available through <http://guir.berkeley.edu/pubs/ubicomp2002/privacyworkshop/>. 19 See Philips (2005). 20 Ibid. See also David H. Nguyen and Elizabeth D. Mynatt, ‘Privacy Mirrors: Understanding and Shaping Socio-Technical Ubiquitous Computing Systems’ (2002), available at <http://quixotic.cc.gt.atl.ga.us/~dnguyen/writings/PrivacyMirrors.pdf>. 21 Moreover, individuals should be able to contest that certain determinations are m ade, to object to certain use and to ask for alternative use