Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the world wide web, put privacy into the spotlight last week when he warned social net workers that everything they post online might be read by friends and relatives, present and future.

Sir Tim's was the latest high- profile warning over invasions of privacy, particularly on the web. As going online has become part of everyday life there has been an associated rise in campaigns and lobbying by “privacy activists”, who harry any business they believe is cavalier with personal details.

So far, the two sides have been arch- enemies. However, as consumer privacy and how to handle it becomes an increasingly hot issue for companies, some are contemplating a truce and inviting activists into the boardroom to advise on strategy.

There is a tradition of nongovernmental organisations and the corporate world pooling some of their expertise: Greenpeace has entered alliances with a number of multinationals, for instance.

Simon Davies, of pressure group Privacy International, says: “We have become a bit burned out from constantly fighting. We could do a lot more with that energy.”

Microsoft, Facebook and AOL are some of the companies now working with the consultancy arm of Privacy International, 80/20 Thinking, to iron out problems with their data protection policies. For Microsoft, engagement such as this represents a change in attitude. Although the company says it has always been committed to protecting privacy, it has not always been receptive to suggestions by activists.

About 18 months ago, Microsoft launched the controversial Windows Genuine Advantage tool, a piece of software that checks computer systems to see if users are operating genuine, licensed software. Privacy International had previously raised concerns with Microsoft and said the public would see the new software as spyware.

“We predicted the headlines Microsoft would get, but they went ahead,” says Mr Davies.

When critical press articles duly appeared, however, Microsoft began to take the group more seriously. “Suddenly, they brought us in to Redmond to speak to their management and engineers,” says London-based Mr Davies. Now Microsoft regularly holds seminars where its engineers work with 80/20 Thinking on designing privacy policy.

The move is a step-change for the activists too. “After so many years kicking at all these institutions, it is almost a genetic change to understand their problems. It is a steep learning curve for us,” says Mr Davies.

The collaboration has at times proved controversial. Earlier this year, only six weeks after it was founded, 80/20 Thinking entered a firestorm when it agreed to perform a privacy audit on Phorm, an Aim-listed company, which is trying to create a controversial advertising platform that tracks internet customers' web history.

There was confusion over whether 80/20 Thinking or Privacy International had endorsed the venture, and Mr Davies was receiving many angry e-mails a day from Privacy International supporters, some accusing him of selling out. “It was a baptism of fire. We've now learned we have to be very clear about whether it is 80/20 or Privacy International acting. We have added a clause to our contract to say that if there is any intention to use Privacy International's name misleadingly, we will walk out immediately,” he says.

Nicholas Bohm, general counsel at the Foundation for Information Policy Research, a UK internet think-tank, says: “It could give rise to some awkwardness, because a commercial organisation such as 80/20 Thinking would work to answer some very specific questions, but may be portrayed as having blessed the whole thing.”

But Mr Davies remains committed to “the principle that engagement is better than non-engagement – even though I've lost most of my hair over this now”.

Arealisation that collaboration might be more fruitful than conflict came in 2006, after Privacy International gave Ebay a roasting for not allowing customers to close their accounts. Scott Shipman from Ebay's legal team asked the activist group to work with Ebay engineers to fix the problem.

Privacy International maintains a dialogue with Ebay. Mr Shipman says: “I think we both have learned that it is more productive to work together to improve privacy practices, in a co-ordinated fashion. We consult regularly and keep each other up to date on internal and external privacy happenings.”

Mr Davies says working with companies leaves the pressure group more time to spend on issues such as privacy concerns in India and China.

But whether working with activists benefits companies remains to be seen. Engaging 80/20 Thinking appears, if anything, to have backfired on Phorm. Its shares have lost a third of their value as the privacy debate has raged on.

But Kent Ertugrul, Phorm chief executive, defends the exercise. The furore, he says, “underscores the need to reassure people on what we are doing. This is an ongoing dialogue, building a reputation for transparency”. He will continue inviting other privacy groups to inspect the company's code and working methods to reassure them, he says.

Some companies remain unconvinced. Google still has an adverserial relationship with Privacy International, which savaged the search engine company in a report last summer, calling it “hostile to privacy”.

Mr Davies says Google has been reluctant to work with it since then. “Google is not going to change unless it is kicked. But then Microsoft admitted that it needed to be kicked to change,” Mr Davies says. “There is definitely a mood change now, and we have only just started on the thin edge of the wedge.”

最近，万维网之父提姆•贝尔纳斯-李(Tim Berners-Lee)让隐私成为了焦点，当时他警告社交网站工作人员称，他们发布在网上的任何内容都可能被现在和未来的亲友们看到。

提姆爵士是最近一个就侵犯隐私（尤其是网络隐私）高调发出警告的人。随着上网逐渐成为人们日常生活的一部分，“隐私维权者”的活动和游说也随之增多，这些维权者抨击那些他们认为蔑视个人详细资料的企业。

迄今为止，双方已成为劲敌。然而，随着消费者隐私以及如何处理这一问题日益成为公司热门话题，一些公司正考虑休战，并邀请维权者进入董事会提出战略建议。

非政府组织和企业界有集中其部分专业技能的传统：例如，绿色和平组织(Greenpeace)已与很多跨国公司进行了合作。

压力组织Privacy International的西蒙•戴维斯(Simon Davies)表示：“没完没了的战斗让我们有些筋疲力尽。我们本可以用这些精力做更多事情。”

微软(Microsoft)、Facebook和美国在线(AOL)等公司目前正与Privacy International旗下的咨询公司80/20 Thinking合作，以解决其数据保护政策相关的问题。对于微软而言，参与这些活动代表着态度的转变。尽管该公司称其一直致力于保护隐私，但它并非总会接受维权者提出的建议。

约18个月前，微软发布了备受争议的Windows Genuine Advantage工具，该软件会检查用户的电脑系统，查看用户是否在运行得到许可的正版软件。Privacy International此前曾对微软的做法表示担心，并表示公众将把这一新软件视为间谍软件。

戴维斯表示：“我们预测，微软此举将受到高度关注，但他们仍然推进。”

然而，当媒体批评文章如期出现时，微软对待该组织的态度开始变得更加严肃起来。伦敦的戴维斯表示：“他们突然把我们带到雷蒙德，与公司管理层和工程师对话。”如今，微软会定期举办研讨会，会上工程师们与80/20 Thinking合作制定公司隐私政策。

对于隐私维权者而言，此举也代表着逐步的变化。戴维斯表示：“对所有这些公司抨击了这么多年后，理解他们的问题几乎是一个质的变化。对于我们来说，这是一条陡峭的学习曲线。”

事实证明，这种合作有时备受争议。今年早些时候，在刚成立6周后，80/20 Thinking就遭遇了大风暴，当时该公司同意对在伦敦另类投资市场(Aim)上市的Phorm公司进行隐私审计。Phorm正试图建立一个备受争议的广告平台，跟踪互联网用户的网页浏览历史。

人们搞不清是80/20 Thinking还是Privacy International批准了这次行动，戴维斯一天之内收到了很多来自Privacy International支持者愤怒的电子邮件，一些人称他出卖了Privacy International。他表示：“这是一场炮火的洗礼。我们现在知道，我们必须非常清楚展开行动的是80/20 Thinking还是Privacy International。我们已在合同上增加了一项条款，规定如果有人故意误导性地使用Privacy International的名义，我们会立即退出。”

英国互联网智囊机构Foundation for Information Policy Research首席法律顾问尼古拉斯•博姆(Nicholas Bohm)表示：“这可能会造成一些尴尬，因为80/20 Thinking等商业组织必须回答一些非常细节的问题，但同时它们可能会被描述为是整件事情的策划者。”

然而，戴维斯仍秉承一个“原则”，即“参与比不参与好，尽管现在我为这事业头发都掉了一大半了。”

2006年，Privacy International意识到，合作可能比冲突更为有效，此前，该公司指责Ebay不允许客户注销账户。Ebay法律团队的斯科特•希普曼(Scott Shipman)已邀请这家维权组织与Ebay工程师合作解决这一问题。

Privacy International仍与Ebay保持对话。希普曼表示：“我认为，我们都认识到，采用合作的方式共同改善隐私做法更有效果。我们会定期协商，并且让双方都关注互联网和外部隐私问题的最新动态。”

戴维斯表示，与公司合作让这家压力组织有更多时间，花在印度和中国的隐私权等问题上。

然而，与维权组织合作是否会令公司受益还有待观察。与80/20 Thinking合作似乎（如果有的话）对Phorm产生了反效果。随着隐私讨论的升温，该公司股价下跌了三分之一。

然而，Phorm首席执行官肯特•埃尔图鲁尔(Kent Ertugrul)对这一行为进行了辩护。他表示，人们的愤怒“强调了有必要恢复人们对我们正在做的事情的信心。这一对话正在进行之中，以树立透明的名誉。”他表示，他将继续邀请其它隐私组织检查该公司的章程，找出方法安抚他们。

一些公司仍然不相信。谷歌(Google)与Privacy International有广告往来。去年夏季，Privacy International在一份报告中攻击这家搜索引擎公司，称其“反对隐私”。

戴维斯表示，此后，谷歌一直不愿与该组织合作。“除非受到批评，否则谷歌不会改变。但微软承认，它需要被批评，才能改变，”戴维斯表示。“现在人们的态度确实发生了转变，我们只是刚刚开始。”

• 6小时掌握学英语的秘诀！——点击看答案
• 专治男女记不住单词的秘密