![[HOT Lab logo]](http://www.carleton.ca/hotlab/hottopics/Images/logo_hotlab.gif){kind=logo}
![[Carleton Log]](http://www.carleton.ca/hotlab/hottopics/Images/logo_carleton.jpg){kind=logo}
|
|
 HOT Topics!
Privacy, Control and Empowerment © 2002 by Karin Lindgaard There is little doubt that new communications technologies such as the Internet enhance the ability of individuals to engage in interpersonal communications and to perform tasks such as information search, storage and retrieval. Yet it is also widely appreciated that the freedom and scope provided by such enhanced abilities has come with new challenges and even threats. Perhaps the major arena in which this has become apparent is in relation to issues of privacy. The Internet and related communications bring a new context for considerations of privacy, a context in which data can easily be transmitted widely, rapidly and anonymously, and in which regulation is exceedingly difficult. Whilst it may be tempting to search for an overarching approach to privacy in the way it relates to the Internet, the multitude of problems and proposals that this broad topic raises and the various responses to these reveal it as a thorny issue that brings into play some of our fundamental beliefs about individual control and empowerment, and about government and democracy. The consideration of varying viewpoints highlights a general ambivalence about who exactly is responsible for creating and implementing strategies to secure individual privacy. Recent attempts to define and evaluate privacy are more concerned with privacy as it relates to information than other forms of privacy such as the freedom from physical interference. For example, Moor states that “The concept of privacy has been evolving in the U.S. from a concept of non-intrusion…to a concept of non-interference…to limited information access”. [7:30] This is a direct reflection of the fact that we increasingly “leave electronic footprints everywhere”, [7:28] but we may not know how or by whom our information is used. At the same time, to understand the issue of privacy it is important that any basic definition or approach not be entirely restricted to privacy as it relates to information.
What is privacy? – A Philosophical Approach In creating a philosophical approach to privacy, it is indeed difficult to avoid static definitions that confuse privacy with concepts such as liberty, solitude, secrecy and autonomy.[10:30] A useful definition of privacy would be somewhat context-based, to allow for differing proportions in a multitude of situations. Moor recognized this in his “control / restricted access theory of privacy”.[7:30] He first distinguishes between natural and normative privacy, with a naturally private situation being “a situation in which people are protected from intrusion or observation by natural or physical circumstances”, and a normatively private situation being “a situation protected by ethical, legal or conventional norms”.[7:30] This allows for the important distinction between situations in which natural privacy is lost and situations in which normative privacy is violated. For example, if someone is sitting alone in a room with the door closed and another person opens the door and enters the room, privacy is lost. However, whether or not privacy is violated depends on the normative circumstances of the situation, whether there are pre-existing norms regarding who else may enter the room and when. Some situations may be both naturally private, in the sense that the content is hidden, and normatively private, for example sending a letter. This is naturally private, in the sense that the content is hidden, and normatively private because it is generally understood to be inappropriate for anyone other than the addressee to open mail, except in particular and prearranged circumstances. Distinguishing between natural and normative privacy helps us to think about what we expect from certain situations in relation to sending an email, releasing personal information during an e-commerce transaction or simply surfing the net. Defining normative privacy highlights choice as a very important element in establishing and maintaining privacy. Specific norms must be agreed upon in relation to the many new and specific situations created by new communications technologies. The basic definition of the control / restricted access theory reported by Moor (arrived at in an earlier collaborative paper) [2] is that An individual or group has normative privacy in a situation with regard to others if and only if in that situation the individual or group is normatively protected from intrusion, interference and information access by others.[7:30] This definition does not assert that the individual or group has complete control, which according to Tavern would be to confuse privacy with autonomy. Neither is it saying that all that is required for privacy is restricted access, which would be to confuse privacy with secrecy. Rather, in combining the two but focusing exclusively on neither, the individual fully understands the parameters of a situation and in doing so, negotiates standards or agrees to norms for that particular type of situation. This is made clearer by Moor’s adding of the ‘Publicity Principle’, which states “Rules and conditions governing private situations should be clear and known to the persons affected by them. [This] encourages informed consent and rational decision making.”[7:32]
The Internet – Public Space or Private Space? Reporting a poll of 1,017 American Internet users, Susannah Fox writes that “American Internet users overwhelmingly want the presumption of privacy when they go online.” [3] The wording of this statement can perhaps tell us something about the types of situations that people think they are engaged in when they go online, or the types of situations they would prefer. If people want the ‘presumption’ of privacy, this suggests that people would prefer a general sense of privacy without necessarily entering into any normative agreements. This may reflect the possibility that until quite recently, people have tended to assume that engaging in online activity is naturally private. This makes perfect sense given that such activity can often seem naturally private, both because online activity often consists of one person engaging with information, and that interaction with others online is mostly text based and remote. This relates to the question of whether the Internet constitutes a public or a private space. There is no easy answer to this question, as the Internet creates new ways of interacting that encompass both the private and the public. Yet it would certainly be erroneous to say that all activity online and all information ventured about oneself online should be assumed to be public activity and information. Tavani makes the useful distinction between issues relating to privacy that are internet-specific and those that are internet-enhanced. He lists internet-specific threats to privacy as search engines, which give easy access to information about an individual of which that person may not even be aware, and cookies, used to track an individual’s choices and movements within a website and in some cases amongst a number of sites. Internet enhanced threats center around the collection, storage, manipulation and distribution of information with the use of powerful databases. [10] Whilst the ability to compile information about an individual is not new, what is new is the ease with which profiles can be formed by sophisticated cross matching, and how rapily and easily information can be sent between individuals, corporations and organizations. Understanding this helps us to pinpoint the difficulty we may have in analyzing issues pertaining to notions of ‘private’ and ‘public’, namely by pointing out that enhancing these capacities with relation to data management changes the way we perceive public information. Tavani maintains that Most privacy concerns involving data mining [are] not centred on the exchange of confidential or intimate information such as one’s medical records, financial records, or personal relationships. Rather, the concern [is] over the collection of a kind of personal information which, in the past, one might have thought not to need protection. [10] If we look again at the difference between natural and normative privacy, and the concept of ’informed consent’ implied in normative privacy, we may begin to understand why users are so concerned with privacy. While engaging in online activity, it is often difficult to know what kind of space we are in, besides the fact that when we are in the public sphere we are generally not given many (if any) options to form meaningful privacy agreements. At the very least, it would be useful to be able to know what we might assume about privacy and surveillance given what type of situation we are engaging in. To clarify, Fox discusses the work of Judith Donath, who “says that until Web sites design spaces that are clearly public or clearly private, users will have trouble choosing what information to share and what to hide…that fundamental decisions about what to share “shouldn’t be about reading the fine print” of a Web site’s privacy policy, but instead should be as obvious as the difference between staying in the privacy of your own home versus walking down the street.” [in 8] This brings up a number of pivotal issues relating to choice and regulation. Putting forward the idea that we should know instinctively where we are and how we should behave with regards to privacy implies that someone else is setting standards and, more importantly, implementing and consistently regulating those standards. Discussion of regulation forms the last part of this paper. Before turning to this it is worth being a little more specific about exactly which breaches of privacy users are concerned with, and how people are empowered by communicating online.
Specific Privacy Concerns Briefly, the issues that concern users are the tracking of their activities through the Internet, data mining, email snooping, the receiving of offensive messages and spam, credit card fraud, and the use of search engines to access information about an individual. Concern about data mining may apply to both sensitive and non-sensitive information, and the fear of email snooping applies to government, employees and strangers. A comparison of two Gallup Polls, one taken in September, 2000 with a sample of 573 Internet users, and one taken in June, 2001 with a sample of 391 users reflects that an overwhelming majority of users are at least ‘somewhat concerned’ about privacy regarding their online activities. However, the more recent poll shows fewer people to be ‘very concerned’ about this than during the previous year, with 53% choosing very concerned in the 2000 poll compared with 28% in the later poll. Decreasing concern may be related to fewer perceived threats, along with increased comfortability as people beomce more experienced users. Nonetheless, the fact remains that a similar percentage of users expressed at least some concern in both polls (82% in 2000 and 78% in 2001). [5] The Pew Internet poll of 1,017 users, published by Fox in 2001 also makes the generalization that ”Online Americans have great concerns about breaches of privacy”. [3] Amongst questions regarding credit card misuse, tracking, and email snooping, the 2001 Gallup poll showed misuse of credit card information to be the most pressing concern for users (82% either very or somewhat concerned), and records of internet usage kept by companies to then be used for marketing to be the second most pressing concern (73% of users very or somewhat concerned). Issues that rated the most highly amongst users’ concerns in the earlier Gallup poll were those relating to the ability of governments to ‘tap’ personal email and home computer files, questions notably absent in the later poll. The other major issue for users questioned in the 2000 poll was the consolidation and dissemination of personal information by large online databases. The Pew Internet project describes the same concern with the spread of personal information, summarizing that “[a]n overwhelming majority of Internet users (84%) are concerned about businesses or people they don’t know getting personal informaiton about themselves and their families”. Fox also reports that 86% of users think that Internet companies should ask permission to use their personal information by creating opt-in privacy policies. Opt-in privacy policies require the user to give explicit permission, as opposed to opt-out policies, which mean that information can be collected and used unless the user actively ‘opts-out’ of this. This report also maintains that ”54% of Internet users believe that Web sites’ tracking of users is harmful because it invades their privacy”, whilst just 27% say tracking is helpful because it allows the sites to provide information tailored to specific customers”. [3] It has been demonstrated that cultural differences can affect the attitude of users to privacy issues. [4:152] It is therefore important to acknowledge that the aforementioned polls were all carried out in the United States, limiting their scope somewhat. Nonetheless, their general findings can elucidate broad issues of Internet privacy. One important observation we may make is that questions regarding privacy and regulation, such as those addressed by these polls cover different genres of activity, requiring varying methods of control. The spectrum of concerns addressed in the polls ranges from credit card misuse to government surveillance to companies’ at times questionable marketing activities. Whilst it is fair to say that these issues all relate to privacy in some way there is a very clear distinction between credit card fraud and the tracking of movements in a website to gather anonymous information about a user’s preferences. The earlier is much more easily identifiable as a crime than the latter. If people do conceptualize these two phenomena under the same umbrella of ‘privacy’, and it is conceivable that they do, then this suggests that people do not think think they are safe from anything, from minor privacy violations to criminal activity, when they go online. It seems people really do think they are alone in an unregulated environment where the rules and laws pertaining to ‘real’ life do not apply. It seems unlikely that 46% of people would be ‘very concerned’ and 36% would be ’somewhat concerned’ [5] about using their credit card in a store or even over the phone. We might assume that the difference between this and the Internet is not only the difficulty of verifying the legitimacy of a transaction on the Internet, but also that people imagine that they are unprotected if fraud does occur on the Internet, a protection they may take for granted in the ‘real’ world (ie. that they will not lose their money). People feel unprotected, even from crime, when they engage in online activities. It is interesting that the 2000 Gallup poll rated the possibility of government invading privacy as the issue of most concern. As in the case of phone tapping, email tapping requires a warrant from a magistrate. As with the example of credit card fraud, it would be very difficult to imagine people citing phone tapping as something they are highly concerned about. This suggests, again, that users are very unsettled by the ease with which information can be tampered, and that they do not trust anyone, including governments, not to misuse this ability. It is reasonable to say that in this new medium, people feel that they can only rely on themselves. There is no way to be confident that they are safe from privacy invasion, or even crime, or that if they are infringed upon they will be able to do anything about it, that is, if they are even aware that an infringement has occurred. The power of the Internet emerges as a paradoxical power. Given that users give up some control over privacy, it is useful to discuss what types of control people gain, or think they gain by using the Internet. This then feeds into discussing what privacy control measures might mean for users.
Empowerment Saying that the Internet provides a medium in which individuals feel they can only rely on themselves can invoke a number of connotations. Firstly, as has been mentioned, such a situation can imply vulnerability, lack of protection and lack of support. Conversely, self-reliance can imply and encourage individual control. For if we are unprotected whilst online, we are also unpoliced. We are free, in a sense, to be the masters of our own universes, at least in this context. That people experience something of this feeling whilst interacting in the online world is by no means an outrageous claim. Neither is it unreasonable to say that the sense of individual mastery influences to a great degree the reluctance to allow someone else to regulate the Internet. In his book, The Control Revolution, Shapiro describes the development of the Internet as a shifting of power relations. He begins by saying that “Power is devolving down to ‘end users’. The upshot of new technology…seems to be its ability to put individuals in charge”. [9:10-11] He maintains, however, that individual empowerment is not an inevitable outcome, given that institutions resist handing power over to individuals, and that individuals can also be careless with their newfound power. This carelessness, referred to as oversteer, results in situations in which we overestimate our abilites to use the powers gained through new technologies such as the Internet. Examples of oversteer include the excessive customization of personal information. The degree to which we are able to choose the information that we receive via the Internet, and the possiblity that individuals will decide to use the Internet as their sole information source, for the very reason of customization, can result in a dangerous narrowing of horizons, reducing the possibilities for tolerance, understanding and a common language amongst diverse groups in society. Shapiro points out that “the infinite scope of today’s information sphere may lead indirectly, if somewhat perversely, to a loss of diverse experience and a flattening of perspective”. [9:107] A similar paradox emerges in relation to news media. The swiftness and scope of information access and communication greatly increases opportunities for holding the media accountable. Any misconstruing of facts by the media can be immediately and effectively challenged by independent sources. Shapiro says that “individuals will exercise more control over the flow of information, and over the way that society understands issues.” [9:43] Yet something that is indeed positive and liberating might also reveal a darker side, the “fallacy of individual control…the idea that each of us can, or should judge the accuracy of information on our own.” [9:141] Access to information is rendered much less useful if the onus is always on the user to somehow verify that information. This is not to imply that it is ever possible to unquestioningly believe anything we read, whether online or not, or that we should not make our own decisions about what to believe, but rather that the task of deciding is made so much more difficult in a realm like the Internet if we decide that there is no call for any standards or regulation. These issues relate to privacy in the sense that they can begin to show us that notions of individual control contain both positive and negative aspects. They also allow us to come at the incredible and novel power the Internet gives us to imagine mastery and control. The earlier Gallup poll begins, A recent Gallup survey finds the majority of Internet users pay heavy lip service to concerns about Internet privacy, but at the same time finds most users pay scant attention to the issue. [8] In the opening paragraph of the analysis of the Pew Internet Project, Fox states that Online Americans have great concerns about breaches of privacy, while at the same time they do a striking number of intimate and trusting things on the internet. [3] Superficially, we may take this to mean that users are not really as concerned as they say they are about Internet privacy. However we might also interpret these two statements as suggesting that users are concerned but do not have enough time to become heavily involved in the issue, and so go about their business as usual. Rather than this suggesting that concern is not so high, it may reveal the importance that people place in carrying out certain activities online, such that they are willing to forego certainty about their privacy. This is perhaps a combination of general ambivalence about what is to be done about the issue, and an illustration of the power that the online world has over us. This power is expressed in the illusion of control that interacting online gives us, the illusion that overrides our concerns about privacy. Ambivalence is identifiable in both of the aforementioned reports. The 2000 Gallup Poll reports that a majority (63%) are ‘very concerned’ about private email being spied on by the government, and yet 50% of respondents also want the government to do more to ensure citizens privacy online. Fox reports that “Internet users rejects the notion that the government and Internet companies are the best stewards of their personal privacy”, yet a staggering “94% of Internet users want privacy violators to be disciplined” in some way. If “50% of online Americans said that Internet users themselves would also be best” [3] at setting rules regarding tracking online, might we assume that users would also be best at disciplining violators? Of course this sounds absurd, but it is ambivalence like this that shows that users want to control their environment themselves, but are perhaps unsure as to whether this is possible.
Anonymity Individual empowerment in online activity is nonetheless an important, useful and satisfying thing. People do have access to an amazing amount of information, such that they can easily indulge their very specific interests, and communicate with others who share these interests. Users can form meaningful relationships through email, chat rooms and discussion groups, and can experiment with identity in a generally safe way. People are able to gain helpful advice and support, visit unusual places and order obscure products. One way that users are empowered, and often actively empower themselves is through anonymity. This offers a way of minimizing discrimination and liability, as well as a way of obtaining and sending information for those living under repressive regimes. Anonymity has emerged as a way for people to control how much information they give out about themselves. Froomkin says that “anonymity may be the primary tool available to citizens to combat the compilation and analysis of personal profile data.” [in 6:18] Indeed, Fox reports that “[a]bout a quarter of Internet users have provided a fake name or personal information in order to avoid giving a Web site real information”. [3] She reports that young people and people with more online experience are more likely to resort to these tactics. Gattiker reports, from a study raising issues about encryption technology that “younger people are more open to the use of privately designed approaches” to securing privacy, such as providing fake information. [4:127] It may be tempting to interpret this age difference as meaning simply that older people tend to ‘moralize’ more than younger people (i.e. they are more concerned about honesty). However, it is worth reflecting on the possibility that younger people, having been introduced to the Internet at a younger age, are just more used to the notion that in some situations in their lives they will have to look after themselves. They are perhaps more comfortable with the idea of the Internet as a lawless, unregulated zone. Falsifying personal information may solve some privacy issues for users. However, the use of anonymity brings with it a host of problems, not least the fact that it is the opportunity for anonymity that makes possible much online crime, spamming and offensive behaviour. As Clarke says in his paper “Certainty of Identity”, Anonymity compromises accountability, in that it undermines society’s ability to impose sanctions on miscreants, and therefore reduces the extent to which fear of retribution curbs disapproved behaviour. [1] Clarke and Kabay express similar sentiments in advocating the enforcing of traceable pseudonyms, effectively placing the link between anonymity and identity in the hands of a third party. This approach involves establishing normative privacy, and both authors invoke something of Moor’s publicity principle. For Clarke, the link between pseudonym and identity “is protected by technical, legal and organizational agreements”, such that legal avenues must be followed for someone’s identity to be released. Kabay, on the other hand, would like to avoid laws altogether, and puts forward the solution that different ISPs could fulfill varying degrees of privacy protection through traceable pseudonyms. Those that provide a high level of privacy protection could block information from ISPs known to have fewer protections. This system relies on providers using secure and recognizable keys, so that other providers and users could easily and reliably identify where information was coming from, without necessarily knowing the individual author of that information. Kabay claims that this would enact the self-regulation of privacy, without limiting any one user unnecessarily. Kabay says that Making ISPs responsible for enforcing their chosen level of strong identification and authentication will allow a non-governmental, non-legalistic approach to reducing abuse by anonymous and pseudonymous Internet users. [6] He also says that In my opinion, governments world-wide would do better to stay out of cyberspace and allow users to develop their own transnational solutions for governing behaviour. [6] These statements go to the heart of the matter with regard to privacy regulation and our collective illusions about the Internet. Whilst the option of third party identification is indeed sound, and is lauded by many, we may wonder what this would mean if there was no regulation of the third party. When Kabay uses the phrase ‘making ISPs responsible’, we may wonder to whom exactly he is referring. According to him, governments should certainly not ‘make’ them do anything. We might assume then, that he means users, but how would we enforce such a standard? Surely not simply by the giving or withdrawing of our business, as this would mean we would each have to know a great deal about the activities of our provider. How would a provider be disciplined for not adhering to consistent standards of identification and authentication, by us, the newly empowered transnational population? Given that we don’t have time now to pay much attention to privacy issues, despite being very concerned for ourselves, (as polls suggest), this does not seem a reasonable option. Privacy concerns certainly confront our propensity and desire to think of the Internet as ‘another place’, filled with, as Shapiro puts it, “chaotic vitality”, [9:204] that we can somehow learn to tap into and control individually. Yet we might also think, as Shapiro does, that the “sublime myth that online interaction occurs on some unchartered, lawless frontier has lost its luster.” [9:227] Perhaps both statements are true. Perhaps, also, the strength of our desire for personal control in this arena reflects more general concerns about control, partly attributable to a certain lack of faith in our governing bodies, and in the very process of representative democracy.
Government Regulation The borderless nature of the Internet brings up valid arguments against government regulation. Kabay supports his argument by saying that Governments will continue to fail in their efforts to govern cyberspace because electronic communications networks are inherently divorced from geographical jurisdictions. [6] Gattiker maintains that there are two choices for government regulation. Either the Internet and its contents continue to be unregulated or international sovereignty is introduced, which would enforce a worldwide standard. [4:109] It is not clear what she means by international sovereignty, but presumably if enough countries collectively decided to regulate the Internet under one set of clearly defined rules this could be approximated. This seems unlikely, given the difficulty of international cooperation on many other political issues arguably more important than privacy protection on the Internet. At the same time, it is conceivable that some kind of regulating body could be formed by representatives from different countries. We may wonder whether this would be acceptable to users. With the ability to access, manipulate and communicate information via the Internet, people are more than ever able to do things themselves. People can buy shares and do banking online, as well as take courses and tailor their daily information intake. Shapiro describes the decline of ‘middlemen’. Disintermediation is the…word that is used to describe this circumventing of middlemen. Generally, it is associated with the ability to engage in commerce directly without brokers, retailers, and distributors. But the concept can be usefully expanded to describe the way that technology allows individuals to bypass editors, educators, and other gatekeepers who stand between us and whatever it is we seek. [9:55] The Internet allows disintermediation and this is a part of the feeling of individual control. The goal of disintermediation is also evident in the way that some people are advocating a shift to direct democracy, what Shapiro calls ‘push button politics’, now that technology has made it a conceivable option. Direct democracy would mean that individuals could vote online about all actions of government, such as individual policies, and government would be there simply to implement the will of the people. Representatives could even be voted out at any time if they were perceived to be performing poorly. [1] Shapiro makes the excellent point that intermediaries have a function, namely to ensure things like quality and safety. With regard to politics, a part of the role of elected representatives is to spend time debating issues to come to reasonable judgements. “Policy and law should ideally be shaped by trained professionals who have the resources at their disposal to be effective leaders and problem-solvers.” [9:55] Simply put, it is worthwhile having experts. Direct democracy via online communications would demand an impossible amount of our time, and if we were adamant about voting on many issues, we would likely be making superficial decisions at least some of the time. Whilst representative democracy can at times seem a caricature of reasoned debate and decision making to reach the best possible conclusion, this is no argument for doing away with it all together. Rather than grabbing at our newly acquired power to do everything ourselves, it would be worth considering our attitudes towards representative democracy and asking ourselves how we can strengthen citizens’ feelings that they are well represented and able to participate in a meaningful way in their own government. This connects with the issue of privacy. If we are indeed disillusioned with representative democracy, this explains something about our attraction to increasing the power of the individual, and our distrust of government regulation. The steps we make in dealing with an issue like privacy reverberate through society whether we like it or not. Of course, the argument that the Internet by its very nature defies regulation is a strong one, and can suggest that there is no point searching for any solution to problems like those associated with privacy protection. Yet we cannot ignore the fact that such issues will continue to arise, and without very careful consideration will likely increase in scope and severity. Opting for market based solutions to the problem of privacy, for example by making ISPs responsible for regulation, places a dangerous amount of power in the hands of a third party and tends to commodify the concept of privacy itself. Placing the onus completely on the individual to negotiate all privacy agreements leaves people unnecessarily vulnerable. Any solution will likely combine the power of individuals, governments and organizations to assert their own interests in appropriate contexts. The philosophical centre of any solution must be to some degree about sharing power. The idea of power sharing according to appropriate contexts reflects back on Moor’s theory in the sense that normative agreements are situational rather than static. Individuals should be empowered, but empowerment does not mean taking complete control and acting in isolation. Genuine empowerment includes enough trust, ability and willingness to engage and cooperate. Strengthening community can strengthen democracy, and this is perhaps the key point to consider. Shapiro looks at the tendency for successful online communities to meet offline, and says that “the history of online communities suggests that people want to convene with their geographic neighbours, both online and off”. [9:212] He suggests increasing the formation of local networks that are “ubiquitous, accessible and interesting enough so that all Net users will want to use them, at least some of the time”. [9:212] The idea is to use local entry points as portals to the global information network, encouraging localism and dialogue amongst members of the same geographical community. Access should be free, and may be modeled on existing community networks or on city-based commercial sites, providing commercial sites contribute to the community through the sharing of online resources. Bringing local communities together in this way could strengthen public discussion of and involvement in local issues and politics and empower citizens “to see that the state does not abuse its power or even wield it incompetently”. [9:224] The key is balance, amongst the interests of individuals, their governments and the commercial sector.
Conclusion Privacy issues can seem labyrinthine, and this paper does not claim to make great forays into the maze. Nonetheless, it does suggest that we should think beyond the immediate practical issues of how to protect individuals from privacy violations, to consider general attitudes towards government and control. This paper attempts to use some opinion polls to highlight a possible ambivalence towards issues of privacy, and then to address this ambivalence in terms of a struggle within individuals, between their own empowerment and their own protection. It aligns itself with Shapiro’s work, suggesting a need for community networking amongst geographic neighbours, to balance power relations amongst individuals, communities, governments and commercial entities. Balancing power in this way may play a part in finding solutions to issues such as the securing of personal privacy.
References [1] Clarke, Roger, “Information Technology: Weapon of Authoritarianism or Tool of Democracy?”, paper presented at IFIP World Congress, Hamburg, September 1994, [Online] at [2] Culver, Charles, James Moor, William Dwerkldt, Marshall Kapp and Mark Sullivan, “Privacy”. Professional Ethics 3. Nos. 3 & 4, 1994. [3] Fox, Susannah, “Trust and Privacy Online: Why Americans Want to Rewrite the Rules”, The Pew Internet and American Life Project. Washington D.C., 2000, [Online] at http://www.perinternet.org/reports/pdfs/PIP_Trust_Privacy_Report.pdf retrieved 4/1/02. [4] Gattiker, Urs E. The Internet as a Diverse Community: Cultural, Organizational and Political Issues, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001 [5] Jones, Jeffrey M. & Darren K. Carlson, “Majority of E-mail Users Express Concern about Internet Privacy”, The Gallup Organization, 2001, [Online] at http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases.pr010628.asp [6] Kabay, M.E. "Anonymity and Pseudonymity in Cyberspace: Deindividuation, Incivility and Lawlessness Versus Freedom and Privacy," Annual Conference of the European Institute for Computer Antivirus Research (EICAR), Munich, Germany 168 March 1998. [7] Moor, J. H., “Towards a Theory of Privacy in the Information Age”, Computers and Society, Vol. 27, 3, 1997. [8] Saad, Linda, “Few Web Users Paying Close Attention to Internet Privacy Issue”, The Gallup Organization, 2000, [Online] at http://www.gallup.com/ retreived 4/1/02. [9] Shapiro, Andrew L., The Control Revolution, Century Foundation, 1999. [10] Tavani, Herman T., “Privacy and the Internet”, 2000, [Online] at http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/iptf/commentary/content/2000041901.html retrieved 4/1/02. Subscribe/Unsubscribe
|
|