Self, Privacy, and Power: Is It All Over? (with R. Sloan)

Richard Warner
{"title":"Self, Privacy, and Power: Is It All Over? (with R. Sloan)","authors":"Richard Warner","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2401165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The realization of a multifaceted self is an ideal one strives to realize. You realize such a self in large part through interaction with others in various social roles. Such realization requires a significant degree of informational privacy. Informational privacy is the ability to determine for yourself what others may do with your information. The realization of multifaceted selves requires informational privacy in public. There is no contradiction here. Informational privacy is a matter of control, and you can have such control in public. Current information processing practices greatly reduce privacy in public thereby threatening the realization of multifaceted selves. To understand why this is happening and to figure out how to respond, we analyze the foundations of privacy in public.Privacy in public consists in privacy by obscurity and privacy by voluntary restraint. Privacy by obscurity is essentially a matter of getting lost in the crowd. Privacy by voluntary restraint was perhaps first explicitly discussed by the great nineteen century sociologist, Georg Simmel. He was impressed by the fact that people voluntarily limit their knowledge of each other as interact in various social roles. Merchants and customers, students and teachers, restaurant customers and waiters, for example, typically exchange only the information necessary to their interaction in those roles and voluntarily refrain from requesting, disclosing, or otherwise discovering more. Advances in information processing have greatly reduced both privacy by obscurity and privacy by voluntary restraint. We focus on the latter. One reason is that, as privacy by obscurity declines, the need for privacy in public by voluntary restraint increases. We confine our attention to the private sector; however, given the current corporate-government surveillance partnership, constraining private information processing is an essential part of constraining governmental processing.Unlike privacy by obscurity, you need the cooperation of others to realize privacy by voluntary restraint. We explain the cooperation by appeal to informational norms, norms that define contextually varying permissions and restrictions on the collection, use, and distribution of information. Norm-implemented coordination is essential to privacy in public (in the form of voluntary restraint), and it is this coordination that advances in information processing and related business practices undermined. This happens in two ways. First, businesses exploit existing norms to create a debased form of \"coordination\" that serves their interests while eroding privacy in public. Second, technology-driven business innovation has created new forms of interaction not governed by relevant information norms. This lack of norms means the lack the coordination essential to privacy in public. As privacy in public disappears, multifaceted selves face the threat of disappearing — literally — from the scene. The solution is to establish norms that ensure sufficient privacy in public. We conclude by considering the prospects for doing so.","PeriodicalId":424163,"journal":{"name":"Tulane Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property","volume":"116 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tulane Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2401165","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The realization of a multifaceted self is an ideal one strives to realize. You realize such a self in large part through interaction with others in various social roles. Such realization requires a significant degree of informational privacy. Informational privacy is the ability to determine for yourself what others may do with your information. The realization of multifaceted selves requires informational privacy in public. There is no contradiction here. Informational privacy is a matter of control, and you can have such control in public. Current information processing practices greatly reduce privacy in public thereby threatening the realization of multifaceted selves. To understand why this is happening and to figure out how to respond, we analyze the foundations of privacy in public.Privacy in public consists in privacy by obscurity and privacy by voluntary restraint. Privacy by obscurity is essentially a matter of getting lost in the crowd. Privacy by voluntary restraint was perhaps first explicitly discussed by the great nineteen century sociologist, Georg Simmel. He was impressed by the fact that people voluntarily limit their knowledge of each other as interact in various social roles. Merchants and customers, students and teachers, restaurant customers and waiters, for example, typically exchange only the information necessary to their interaction in those roles and voluntarily refrain from requesting, disclosing, or otherwise discovering more. Advances in information processing have greatly reduced both privacy by obscurity and privacy by voluntary restraint. We focus on the latter. One reason is that, as privacy by obscurity declines, the need for privacy in public by voluntary restraint increases. We confine our attention to the private sector; however, given the current corporate-government surveillance partnership, constraining private information processing is an essential part of constraining governmental processing.Unlike privacy by obscurity, you need the cooperation of others to realize privacy by voluntary restraint. We explain the cooperation by appeal to informational norms, norms that define contextually varying permissions and restrictions on the collection, use, and distribution of information. Norm-implemented coordination is essential to privacy in public (in the form of voluntary restraint), and it is this coordination that advances in information processing and related business practices undermined. This happens in two ways. First, businesses exploit existing norms to create a debased form of "coordination" that serves their interests while eroding privacy in public. Second, technology-driven business innovation has created new forms of interaction not governed by relevant information norms. This lack of norms means the lack the coordination essential to privacy in public. As privacy in public disappears, multifaceted selves face the threat of disappearing — literally — from the scene. The solution is to establish norms that ensure sufficient privacy in public. We conclude by considering the prospects for doing so.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
自我、隐私和权力:一切都结束了吗?(与R.斯隆合作)
实现一个多面自我是一个人努力实现的理想。你在很大程度上是通过在不同的社会角色中与他人的互动来实现这样的自我。这种实现需要相当程度的信息隐私。信息隐私指的是你自己决定别人如何处理你的信息的能力。多面化自我的实现需要公共信息隐私。这里没有矛盾。信息隐私是一个控制问题,你可以在公共场合拥有这样的控制。当前的信息处理实践极大地减少了公众的隐私,从而威胁到多元自我的实现。为了理解为什么会发生这种情况,并找出如何应对,我们分析了公共场合隐私的基础。公共场合的隐私包括隐蔽的隐私和自愿约束的隐私。隐晦的隐私本质上是在人群中迷失的问题。自愿约束的隐私也许是由19世纪伟大的社会学家乔治·西梅尔(Georg Simmel)首先明确讨论的。让他印象深刻的是,人们在扮演不同的社会角色时,会自愿限制对彼此的了解。例如,商人和顾客、学生和教师、餐馆顾客和服务员通常只交换他们在这些角色中互动所必需的信息,并自愿避免要求、披露或以其他方式发现更多信息。信息处理的进步极大地减少了由于模糊而产生的隐私和由于自愿约束而产生的隐私。我们关注的是后者。一个原因是,随着不为人知的隐私减少,通过自愿约束在公共场合保护隐私的需求增加了。我们把注意力集中在私营部门;然而,鉴于当前企业与政府的监视伙伴关系,限制私人信息处理是限制政府处理的重要组成部分。与模糊的隐私不同,你需要他人的合作来实现自愿约束的隐私。我们通过诉诸信息规范来解释这种合作,这些规范定义了对信息的收集、使用和分发的上下文不同的许可和限制。规范实施的协调对公共隐私至关重要(以自愿约束的形式),正是这种协调破坏了信息处理和相关商业实践的进步。这通过两种方式发生。首先,企业利用现有的规范,创造了一种低级的“协调”形式,既符合自己的利益,又损害了公共场合的隐私。第二,技术驱动的商业创新创造了不受相关信息规范约束的新型互动形式。这种规范的缺乏意味着缺乏公共隐私所必需的协调。随着公众隐私的消失,多面性的自我面临着从公众视野中消失的威胁。解决办法是建立规范,确保公共场合有足够的隐私。最后,我们考虑这样做的前景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Self, Privacy, and Power: Is It All Over? (with R. Sloan) Harmonizing Prosecution History Estoppel and the Doctrine of Equivalents in Patent Infringement Actions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1