网络空间中的隐私与民主

IF 2.4 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW Vanderbilt Law Review Pub Date : 2000-02-11 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.205449
P. Schwartz
{"title":"网络空间中的隐私与民主","authors":"P. Schwartz","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.205449","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this Article, Professor Schwartz depicts the widespread, silent collection of personal information in cyberspace. At present, it is impossible to know the fate of the personal data that one generates online. Professor Schwartz argues that this state of affairs degrades the health of a deliberative democracy; it cloaks in dark uncertainty the transmutation of Internet activity into personal information that will follow one into other areas and discourage civic participation. This situation also will have a negative impact on individual self-determination by deterring individuals from engaging in the necessary thinking out loud and deliberation with others upon which choice-making depends. In place of the existing privacy horror show on the Internet, Professor Schwartz seeks to develop multidimensional rules that set out fair information practices for personal data in cyberspace. The necessary rules must establish four requirements: (1) defined obligations that limit the use of personal data; (2) transparent processing systems; (3) limited procedural and substantive rights; and (4) external oversight. Neither the market nor industry self-regulation are likely, however, to put these four practices in place. Under current conditions, a failure exists in the \"privacy market.\" Moreover, despite the Clinton Administration's endorsement of industry self-regulation, this method is an unlikely candidate for success. Industry self-regulation of privacy is a negotiation about \"the rules of play\" for the use of personal data. In deciding on these rules, industry is likely to be most interested in protecting its stream of revenues. Therefore, it will benefit if it develops norms that preserve the current status quo of maximum information disclosure. This Article advocates a legislative enactment of the four fair information practices. This legal expression of privacy norms is the best first step in promoting democratic deliberation and individual self-determination in cyberspace. It will further the attainment of cyberspace's potential as a new realm for collaboration in political and personal activities. Enactment of such a federal law would be a decisive move to shape technology so it will further--and not harm--democratic self-governance.","PeriodicalId":47503,"journal":{"name":"Vanderbilt Law Review","volume":"52 1","pages":"1607"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2000-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"148","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Privacy and Democracy in Cyberspace\",\"authors\":\"P. Schwartz\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.205449\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this Article, Professor Schwartz depicts the widespread, silent collection of personal information in cyberspace. At present, it is impossible to know the fate of the personal data that one generates online. Professor Schwartz argues that this state of affairs degrades the health of a deliberative democracy; it cloaks in dark uncertainty the transmutation of Internet activity into personal information that will follow one into other areas and discourage civic participation. This situation also will have a negative impact on individual self-determination by deterring individuals from engaging in the necessary thinking out loud and deliberation with others upon which choice-making depends. In place of the existing privacy horror show on the Internet, Professor Schwartz seeks to develop multidimensional rules that set out fair information practices for personal data in cyberspace. The necessary rules must establish four requirements: (1) defined obligations that limit the use of personal data; (2) transparent processing systems; (3) limited procedural and substantive rights; and (4) external oversight. Neither the market nor industry self-regulation are likely, however, to put these four practices in place. Under current conditions, a failure exists in the \\\"privacy market.\\\" Moreover, despite the Clinton Administration's endorsement of industry self-regulation, this method is an unlikely candidate for success. Industry self-regulation of privacy is a negotiation about \\\"the rules of play\\\" for the use of personal data. In deciding on these rules, industry is likely to be most interested in protecting its stream of revenues. Therefore, it will benefit if it develops norms that preserve the current status quo of maximum information disclosure. This Article advocates a legislative enactment of the four fair information practices. This legal expression of privacy norms is the best first step in promoting democratic deliberation and individual self-determination in cyberspace. It will further the attainment of cyberspace's potential as a new realm for collaboration in political and personal activities. Enactment of such a federal law would be a decisive move to shape technology so it will further--and not harm--democratic self-governance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47503,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vanderbilt Law Review\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"1607\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2000-02-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"148\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vanderbilt Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.205449\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vanderbilt Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.205449","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 148

摘要

在这篇文章中,施瓦茨教授描述了网络空间中广泛的、无声的个人信息收集。目前,还不可能知道在网上生成的个人数据的命运。施瓦茨教授认为,这种状况会损害协商民主的健康;它在黑暗的不确定性中掩盖了互联网活动转化为个人信息的现象,这些信息将跟随一个人进入其他领域,并阻碍公民参与。这种情况还会对个人的自决产生负面影响,因为它会阻止个人大声地进行必要的思考,并与他人一起进行决策所依赖的审议。为了取代互联网上现有的隐私恐怖秀,施瓦茨教授试图制定多维规则,为网络空间中的个人数据制定公平的信息实践。必要的规则必须确立四个要求:(1)明确限制个人数据使用的义务;(2)透明的处理制度;(3)有限的程序性和实体性权利;(4)外部监督。然而,无论是市场还是行业自律,都不太可能落实这四种做法。在目前的情况下,“隐私市场”存在失灵。此外,尽管克林顿政府支持行业自律,但这种方法不太可能成功。行业隐私自律是关于个人数据使用“游戏规则”的谈判。在决定这些规则时,工业界可能对保护其收入流最感兴趣。因此,如果它能制定出保持最大限度信息披露现状的规范,将会受益。本文主张立法制定信息公平的四种做法。这种对隐私规范的法律表达是促进网络空间民主审议和个人自决的最佳第一步。它将进一步实现网络空间作为政治和个人活动合作的新领域的潜力。制定这样一项联邦法律将是塑造技术的决定性举措,这样它将进一步(而不是损害)民主自治。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Privacy and Democracy in Cyberspace
In this Article, Professor Schwartz depicts the widespread, silent collection of personal information in cyberspace. At present, it is impossible to know the fate of the personal data that one generates online. Professor Schwartz argues that this state of affairs degrades the health of a deliberative democracy; it cloaks in dark uncertainty the transmutation of Internet activity into personal information that will follow one into other areas and discourage civic participation. This situation also will have a negative impact on individual self-determination by deterring individuals from engaging in the necessary thinking out loud and deliberation with others upon which choice-making depends. In place of the existing privacy horror show on the Internet, Professor Schwartz seeks to develop multidimensional rules that set out fair information practices for personal data in cyberspace. The necessary rules must establish four requirements: (1) defined obligations that limit the use of personal data; (2) transparent processing systems; (3) limited procedural and substantive rights; and (4) external oversight. Neither the market nor industry self-regulation are likely, however, to put these four practices in place. Under current conditions, a failure exists in the "privacy market." Moreover, despite the Clinton Administration's endorsement of industry self-regulation, this method is an unlikely candidate for success. Industry self-regulation of privacy is a negotiation about "the rules of play" for the use of personal data. In deciding on these rules, industry is likely to be most interested in protecting its stream of revenues. Therefore, it will benefit if it develops norms that preserve the current status quo of maximum information disclosure. This Article advocates a legislative enactment of the four fair information practices. This legal expression of privacy norms is the best first step in promoting democratic deliberation and individual self-determination in cyberspace. It will further the attainment of cyberspace's potential as a new realm for collaboration in political and personal activities. Enactment of such a federal law would be a decisive move to shape technology so it will further--and not harm--democratic self-governance.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc is an online forum designed to advance scholarly discussion. En Banc offers professors, practitioners, students, and others an opportunity to respond to articles printed in the Vanderbilt Law Review. En Banc permits extended discussion of our articles in a way that maintains academic integrity and provides authors with a quicker approach to publication. When reexamining a case “en banc” an appellate court operates at its highest level, with all judges present and participating “on the bench.” We chose the name “En Banc” to capture this spirit of focused review and provide a forum for further dialogue where all can be present and participate.
期刊最新文献
Beyond Wickedness: Managing Complex Systems and Climate Change Formal Justice and Judicial Precedent Rights, Wrongs, and Recourse in the Law of Torts Discovery Cost Allocation, Due Process, and the Constitution's Role in Civil Litigation Judging Law in Election Cases
×
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