Download - Secrecy and Privacy
-
8/11/2019 Secrecy and Privacy
1/17
-
8/11/2019 Secrecy and Privacy
2/17
Julie
E.
Cohen
The InverseRelationship
between
Secrecy
and
Privacy
THE
INVERSE-RELATIONSHIP NARRATIVE
WITHIN CIVIL LIBERTARIAN
DISCOURSE,
IT
IS COMMONLY HELD
that here
s
an
inverse
elationship
etween
overnment
ecrecy
nd
the
privacy
f
ndividual
itizens.
ccording
o this
nverse-relationship
narrative,
ecrecy
nables nd
perpetuates
rivacy
nvasion
y hielding
government
rying
rom
ublic crutiny.
bsent he
secrecy,
r so the
story oes, hepublicwould allgovernmentoaccount or tsmisdeeds,
after hich
onstitutional
nd
tatutoryrotections
ouldkick n nd
he
proper
alancebetween
ublic
nd
private
ife
wouldbe restored.f
we
tell he
nverse-relationshiptory
ften
nough
nd
ndignantly
nough,
itcan
come o
seem
s
though
e
might
chieve
ufficient
rotection
or
both
rivacy
nd
democracyimply y
imiting
fficial
ecrecy.
The
nverse-relationshiptory
f
how
privacy
s
lostand
gained
is
an
appealing
ne. Stories hat ast
government
s the
greatest
hreat
to ndividual elfare,nd that nvisionndividual elfare s protected
precisely
o
the extent
hat
government
s
restrained,
ave
powerful
cultural
esonance n
American
ublic
discourse. ne
might ay
that
they
xist
n
our
political
NA in
the
fundamentally
iberal
olitical
philosophy
hat
nimates ur
politics
nd our
markets.
Portions f his
ssay
re
adapted
rom
my orthcoming
ook,
Configuring
he
Networked
Self:
Copyright,
urveillance,
nd the
Production
f
Networked
pace (Yale
University
Press,
forthcoming).
social
research Vol 77 :
No 3 :
Fall
2010 883
This content downloaded from 203.217.177.216 on Wed, 6 Aug 2014 22:33:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Secrecy and Privacy
3/17
In the
case of
privacy,
owever,
he
story
s
wrong.
evaluation
of
privacy
s bound
up
with ur
political conomy
nd
with
ur
public
discourse bout nformationolicynimportant ays hathave ittle
or
nothing
o do withofficial onduct. his devaluation
roceeds
n
two
opposite
ut
mutually einforcingatterns: yvalorizing rivate
economic
rrangementsrganized
round
rade
ecrecy
nd
by
elevat-
ing openness
as an ultimate
ood.
There s an inverse
elationship
between
rivacy
nd
secrecy,
ut
there
s an
equallypowerful
nverse
relationship
etween
penness
nd
privacy
hat
or
deological
easons
we are nclined o resist
iscussing.
nd he
very
ame iberal ommit-
ments hat
generate
he
inverse-relationship
tory
revent
s from
understanding
hat
privacy ught
o mean.
THE
POWER OF SECRECY
ACROSS
THE
PUBLIC/PRIVATE
DIVIDE
In
the
emerging
etworked
nformation
conomy,
ccess to
personal
informationbout
current
nd
potential
ustomerss considered
he
key ngredientn market uccess.The United tateshas become the
center
f
large
nd
growing
market or
ersonal
nformation,
ncom-
passing
ll kindsof
data about
individual
ttributes,ctivities,
nd
preferences.
rade
n
some
nformation,
uch
as financial
nd health
information,
s
subject
o
legal
restrictions,
ut mostother
ypes
f
information
low
reely
mongparticipants,
anging
rom
arge
finan-
cial institutions
o search
engines
o divorce
ttorneys
nd
private
detectives. lows
fdata
are facilitated
y corporate
ata brokers
ike
ChoicePoint,xperian,nd AxciomHoofhagle004:600-08). ohelp
companies
and
governments)
akethe most f
the nformation
hey
purchase,
n
industry
evoted o
data
mining
nd behavioral
dver-
tising
as
arisen;
irms
n this
ndustryompete
with ne another o
develop
more
profitable
ethods
f
sorting
nd
classifying
ndividual
consumers.
The driver
f markets
n
personal
nformation
s
a kind
of
privacy,
ut t s
the
privacy
f
private
roperty.
nformation
isclosed
by
ndividualshroughheir ommercial elationshipsecomesthe
884 social
research
This content downloaded from 203.217.177.216 on Wed, 6 Aug 2014 22:33:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Secrecy and Privacy
4/17
private roperty
f
providers
f services nd
goods,
nd that
property
itself s
bought,
old,
nd traded. he ultimate
bject
of thistrade s
thecreation f ndividualizedconomies f ttention,nwhichwe are
known
by
our
preferences
nd
habits nd
captured y
our
oyalties.
Personalizationlso
plays key
role
n
the
vision
fthe future
f
the
Internet s a semanticweb
(Berners-Lee
t al.
2001)
that
connects
people,
nformation,
nd
things.
The
interactivity
f
the
emerging
semantic
eb s
comprehensively
ediated
y
nformationbout ndi-
viduals'
references
nd transactional
istories.
To
be
sure,
government
s an
important
ustomer f
private
sector ata
processors.
n theUnited
tates,
number ffederal
gen-
cies
have awarded
multimillion ollar
contracts o
corporate
data
brokers o
supply
hemwith
personal
nformationbout both citi-
zens
and
foreign
ationals.
rivacy
estrictionshat imit he
extent o
which he
government
an itself ollect
personal
nformation
ener-
ally
do not
pply
o such
purchases
t all
Hoofhagle
004:
622-23).
he
government
as
deployed ecrecy
o
great
ffect
here hese
nitiatives
areconcerned, ith heresult hatwe still nderstandoo ittle bout
many
f
them.
Legal regimes
urporting
o
guarantee
fficial
rans-
parency
re n
fact ndeterminate
n how much
openness
o
require.
For
xample,
he
federal
reedom f
nformationct
FOIA)
mandates
far-reaching
isclosure
f
nformationbout
government
ctions
nd
processes,
ut
exempts
lassified
nformationnd
informationbout
law
enforcement
echniques
nd
procedures
f
uch
disclosure
would
risk
ircumvention
f
he aw
or create
isks
o
ife
r
physical
afety
(552(b)(7)).
Even
o,
most
overnment
ses f
personal
nformation,
hether
collected
directly
r
acquired
from
private
ompanies,
ultimately
are
subject
o
transparencyequirements,
ncluding
hose
mposed
by
the
FOIA,
nd
they
re
subject
o the
supervision
f
courts.
n
the
United
tates,
he
same
requirements
o not
apply
o mostcommer-
cial
data-processingperations.
he
guidelines
n fair
nformation
practices
doptedby
the
Organization
or
Economic
Cooperation
nd
DevelopmentOECD) 1980) ndenacted s a directive
y
he
European
The
Inverse
Relationship
between
Secrecy
and
Privacy
885
This content downloaded from 203.217.177.216 on Wed, 6 Aug 2014 22:33:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Secrecy and Privacy
5/17
Union
EU) 1995)require
arties
hat
ollect
personal
nformationo
provide
isclosures
pecifying
he
purposes
or
which he
nformation
willbeusedandanypotential ecipientsther han heoriginalollec-
tor.
They
lso
must fford ata
subjects
meaningful pportunity
o
examine nd correct he nformation.
n the United
tates,however,
the OECD
guidelines enerally
ave
not
been
applied
o
most
private-
sector
ses and transfersf
personal
ata;
nstead,
uch activities
re
regulated
nly
y
backgroundrohibitionsgainst
nfair nd
deceptive
trade
ractices.
ost
eputable
irms hat
eal
directly
ith onsumers
do disclose ome nformation
bout
their
privacy ractices,
ut the
incentive
s to formulate
isclosures boutboth
purposes
nd
poten-
tial
recipients
n the
most
general
erms
ossible.
his
practice
n turn
shields
econdary ecipients
f
personal
data,
most
of whom do not
disclose
nformationbout
heir
ctivitiest all.
Even
the
highlygranular
purpose
and
recipient
disclosures
required
nder strict
nterpretation
f
the
OECD
guidelines,
more-
over,
would
not
necessarily
hed
ight
n the
operational
ignificance
ofcollectednformation.elling omeonewhatpiecesof nformation
wereconsidered
or he
purposes
f
making
ecisions
bout
credit r
medical
overage rovides
o information
bout
how hat
nformation
mattered.
t reveals
very
ittle bout
the other
ssumptions
sed to
construct
he
operational
euristic,
or
does t
ndicate ow
different
information
ould
have
changed
heresult.
Effortso
gain
access
to
operational
nformation
bout
private-
sector
uses of
personal
nformation
un into
the first f
the
two
discourses f nformationolicy hat mentionedt the start f this
essay:
he
discourse f
economic
ecrecy.
conomic
egimes
f
trade
secrecy
ave as
their
rincipal
urposes
he
protection
f
nnovation
and
competition.
uch
regimes
eproduce
s
a matter f
course
many
of
he
patterns
fnondisclosure
hat
we find o
threatening
hen
hey
manifest
ithin
overnment.
ithin
rade
ecrecy
aw and
practice,
it s
not
only
normal
ut
also
and more
fundamentally
esirable
hat
information
hould
be made
available
only
to
those
authorized
o
know t.
Although
edonot
typically
cknowledgehis, rade ecrecy
886
social research
This content downloaded from 203.217.177.216 on Wed, 6 Aug 2014 22:33:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Secrecy and Privacy
6/17
and state
ecrecy
re
equally mportantspects
f our national
nfor-
mation
policy.
Governmentisclosures
ypically
re
structuredo as
nottodisrupt atternsftrade ecrecy,ndthis s legally anctioned:
theFOIA
552(b)(4)) xempts
rade ecret
nformationrom isclosure
in
most ases.
The nexusbetween tate
ecrecy
nd
economic
ecrecy
as
not
gone
unnoticed
n
information
olicy
debates. cholars ike Danielle
Citron
2008)
have
pointed
ut that
egimes
f
economic
ecrecy
orti-
fied
y
he
FOIA
rade
ecrecy xemptionmay perate
o shield
newly
privatized,ormerlyublic
functions
uch
as
the
design
f electronic
voting rocesses
rom
ublic crutiny.
itron
rgues
hatdue
process
protections
gainst rbitrary
tate
action should extendacross the
public/private
ivide
to
reach the
actions of
the
nominally rivate
actorsnow
performing
uch functions. he
arger roblem,
owever,
goes beyond
he transfer
f
public
functionscross he
public/private
divide.
he
more
mportantuestion
s
why
he
public/private
ivide
should
presumptively
nsulate he
nformation-processingractices
f
other rivatectors rom ublic crutiny.egimes fsecrecy ortified
by
ntellectual
roperty
aw
operate
o
deny
us access
to
large atego-
riesofdecisions
hat
have real and
immediate ffect n
every
acet
f
our
day-to-day
ives,
anging
rom ecisions
bout ccess to credit nd
insurance o moremundane
ecisions boutthe
nformationhatwe
are
shown.
hey
re therefore
legitimate
nd
urgent
ubject
f
public
concern.
THE IDEOLOGY OF OPENNESS
The
obvious
emedy
or oo much
ecrecy,
f
ourse,
s
more
penness.
So,
for
xample,
ome have
argued
hat he best
way
to
equalize
the
power isparitiesesulting
rom
egimes
f tate
r
corporate
ecrecy
s
to
give veryone
ccess
o
the
ame
nformationhat
overnments
nd
corporations
ave
Brin
999;
Mann
et al.
2003).
f
surveillance
eeds
and search
trings
likewere
public
property,
r so the
rgument
oes,
their
bility
ounderwrite
ublic
nd
private
ssertions f
power
would
begreatlyeduced.
The
Inverse
Relationship
between
Secrecy
and
Privacy
887
This content downloaded from 203.217.177.216 on Wed, 6 Aug 2014 22:33:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Secrecy and Privacy
7/17
Herewe
encounter
he
second f
the
twodiscourses f nforma-
tion
policy
hatwork o devalue
privacy.
f
unlight
s thebestdisinfec-
tant ndfree xpressionhefoundationf urdemocracy,hen t eems
only ogical
o think
more
unlight
nd more
nformation
ill make
our
public
iscourse
urer
nd
more emocratic. s for
ll
of
he
ncon-
venient,
mbarrassing
its f
nformation
hat re
suddenly
etworked
and
searchable,
we
should
ll
ust
learnto
get past
the awkwardness
and enter
postprivacy
ra
for xample,
Zittrain
008:
228-34).
he
alternative
making
distinctions
mong
the Internet's nformation
flows nd
regulating
ome of
them
would
threaten herished ree-
domsof
speech
nd
inquiry.
n
that
reasoning,ecrecy
nd
openness
are
complementary
alves f
binary
hat s
thought
o contain
within
it all ofthe
possible
esponses
o nformation
olicy roblems.
rom
privacy erspective,
either
rgument
ollows.
First,
he nformation
olicy
iscourse f
openness
s extraordi-
narily
esistant o
recognizing
hat he
openness racticed
y
ordi-
nary eople,
bothonline
nd
off,
s
a matter f
degree.
he
design
f
mostnetworkednformationervicesmirrorshis nsensitivity.hen
Facebook
nnounced commercial
rrangement
alled the Beacon
program,
hichwould
notify
members f
their riends'
urchases,
t
assumeduserswould
be
delighted.
When
Google
ntroducedts
new
networking
ervice,
Google
Buzz,
automatically
nrolled ll Gmail
customers,
nd
publicly
isted
their
top
Gmail
correspondents
s
their
friends,
omewondered
why nyone
would
object.
The
public
backlash
hatfollowed
ach of
these
ncidents,
nd
many
thers,
was
entirely nsurprising.here remany easons hatonemight refer
not to
share nformation
bout
all of one's
purchases
r
all of one's
private
orrespondence
ith
all
of
one's
friends.
he
designers
f
Facebook
Beacon
nd
Google
Buzz
betrayed
fatal
nsensitivity
o the
fine
ontextual
istinctions
hat
we make
all the time
n
our
nterac-
tions
with he
world,
nd to ourreasons
or
making
hem.
The
everyday
ractice
f
ife nvolves he
creation
nd
manage-
ment fboundaries
etween
ifferentctivities
nd
relationships.
o
an
extent,hese
processes
f
boundary
management
re
mplicitly
ecog-
888 social
research
This content downloaded from 203.217.177.216 on Wed, 6 Aug 2014 22:33:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Secrecy and Privacy
8/17
nized nAlan
Westin's
athbreaking
nd nfluential
iscussion f
privacy
interests,
hich dentifiedreserve s
a
critical
spect
f
privacy
1967:
37-42). ltimately,owever,eserves tooone-dimensionalnotion o
be useful
n
characterizing
he
range
f ocial
processes
hat esult
rom
selective
ithholding
nd
elective isclosure. richer
onceptualization
of
hedifferential
ontrol
hat
ocial
processes
ntail s social
psycholo-
gist
rwin
ltman'smodel f
privacy
s a
dialectical
rocess
f
boundary
regulation1975).
WhileWestin
resented
relatively
tatic
axonomy
of
types
f
nterpersonaleparation,
ltman rafted
dynamic
model
designed
o
encompass
he
range
f
processes y
which
privacy
n
its
various ormss created ndmaintained. ltman
haracterized
rivacy
s
a central
egulatoryrocess y
which
person
or
group)
makeshimself
more r ess ccessible nd
open
to
others,
nd
dentifiedthe
oncepts
of
personal pace
and territorial
ehavior s the
principal
egulatory
mechanisms
n the
process
1975: 3).
He
observed hat he
concepts
f
personal pace
nd
territorialehavior
nform
range
f
privacy-regulat-
ing
behaviors;
ogether,
hose
ehaviorsonstitute
coherent
ystem
or
personal oundary anagementhat espondsynamicallyochanging
circumstances,eeds,
nd desires.
Importantly,
hile the term
privacy
arrieswith t
specific
cultural
baggage,
he
processes
described
by
Altman
have a
more
universal haracter.
lthough
ifferent
ultures ave
different
onven-
tions bout
personal pace
and
territory,eople
n
every
ulture
se
personal
space
and
territory
o
manage
interpersonal
oundaries
(Altman 977).
Those
processes
mediate uman
nteraction
oth
physi-
cally ndconceptually;urunderstandingsfselfhood reshapedby
the
habitsof
boundary
management
hatwe
develop.
Widespread,
undifferentiated
isclosures
hreaten ur
bility
o
manage
urbound-
aries,
with
otentially
rastic
onsequences
or he
processes
y
which
we articulate
ur
dentities,
efine
ur
beliefs,
nd
formulate
ur
poli-
tics.
As Helen
Nissenbaum
2009)
explains,
uch
disclosures
estroy
the
contextual
ntegrity
o which
we
have
become
accustomed.
nd
as
Altman'smodel
makes
clear,
we
require
ome
ability
o
manage
contextualntegritynorder ofunctionn
society.
The
Inverse
Relationship
between
Secrecy
and
Privacy
889
This content downloaded from 203.217.177.216 on Wed, 6 Aug 2014 22:33:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Secrecy and Privacy
9/17
Second,
he
nformation
olicy
iscourse
f
openness
s almost
willfully
lind
to
the
economiesof
desirethat exist n
information
markets economiesthat the ideology fopenness tselfhelps to
create.
odi
ean
2009)
dentifiestension etween ecrets
nd
public-
ity
hat xists
t theheart four
political conomy,
ithin hecore
of
a set
of
practices
hat he terms communicative
apitalism.
Within
communicative
apitalism,
he conomic
ogics
f nformation
arkets
are
fortified
y
a media
culture hat
prizes xposure
nd an intellec-
tual ethos that
assigns
that media culture
ndependent
ormative
value because of
the
greater openness
t fosters.
uilding
n Dean's
framework,
urveillanceheorist irstie
all
2009:641-45)
rgues
hat
voluntarily
isclosed nformation
irculatesn twinned conomies f
authenticity
nd
perversity;
isclosures re called forth
y
manufac-
tured orms f
participation
ut
they
lso takeon
fetish
alue
exactly
because
hey epresent
lices f
uthentic
eality.
Emerging ractices
f
self-exposure
lignneatly
with
processes
of
personalization
hat
operate
n
information
arkets,
nd thatfuel
theemergingemanticweb. Thepointhere s not thatgiantcorpo-
rations xtract
nformationrom
s
against
ur
will
or
in
ways
that
overtly
elegraph
conomic r
political
ubordination;
t is
precisely
the
opposite.
he individualized
conomies f
attention hat harac-
terize
he
emerging
etworkednformation
ociety ependcritically
on our
willing articipation.
n thenetworked
nformation
ociety,
e
are
all in the
personal-information-processing
usiness. asic
network
economics
ictates
hat
latforms
ikeFacebook
nd
Google
havevalue
only o theextent hat nough fusvoluntarilyrovidehemwith he
raw material.
he rub s
that hose ctivities
ave value to Facebook
and
Google
only
o the
extent hat
they
an be monetized.
lowsof
information
ithin he semantic
web constitute
n interlinkederies
of surveillant
ssemblages Haggerty
nd Ericson
000): heteroge-
neous,
oosely
oupled
ets
of nstitutions
hat eekto harness
heraw
power
of
nformation
y
fixing
lows
f nformation
ognitively
nd
spatially.
fcritical
mportance
ithin
Haggerty
nd Ericson's
rame-
work, he surveillant
ssemblage perates
pon tssubjectsnotonly
890 social
research
This content downloaded from 203.217.177.216 on Wed, 6 Aug 2014 22:33:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Secrecy and Privacy
10/17
by
the normalized oul
training
f Foucauldian
heory614-15),
ut
also
by
eduction.
he surveillance
ociety
s not
grim ystopia;
o
the
contrary,lows f nformationithin he urveillantssemblage rom-
ise a
cornucopia
f
benefits nd
pleasures,
ncluding
rice
discounts
and social
status. n return or ts
pleasures,
owever,
he
surveillant
assemblage
demandsfull
enrollment,
hich
cultural nd
political
norms f
openness
nd
sunlight elp
to elicit.
PRIVACY
AND LIBERAL ANXIETIES
Why, hough,
houldwe
think hat
ny
of
this s a
problem?
fter
ll,
we have chosen
t,
or so the
story
oes,
and
we
choose t
again
and
again every
imewe
buy
music,
or
groceries,
r
airline
ickets,
nd
every
imewe
share
pdates
with
urfriends. his s the
point
t which
thefoundationalommitmentsf iberalism
et
n
the
way. hey
ellus
that he hoices
hat
ndividuals
ake
bout
disclosing
nformation
re
definitionally
utonomous
nd
therefore
resumptively
fficient,
nd
that
ggregated,
ccurate nformation
romotes
ruth-discovery.
ne
canimagine woreasons obe skeptical fthese nswers. ne is that
information
rocessing
s
good
for
far
ess thanwe think. he
other
reason s that
privacy
s
good
for
ar
more.Both
possibilities
arrant
our
careful,
ritical ttention.
Let
us
begin
with he first
ossibility:
What
exactly
s informa-
tion
processing ood
for?
What
social
goods
would
protection
or
privacy
revent
s from
chieving?
he
conventionalnswerhas
two
parts:
nformation
rocessing
ives
us whatwe
want,
nd
nformation
processingdvances hepursuitfknowledgend truth.Weshould ee
immediately
hat he first
nswer s
question
begging.
Wants an be
manufactured,
nd
can be
self-destructive.hallmark
f
civilization
is
precisely
he
capacity
or oth ndividual
nd
collective
iscipline
n
theface
f xcessive nd
potentially
elf-destructive
ants.
Perhaps
urprisingly,
he account
of
nformation
rocessing
s
inevitably
ruth-enhancing
ares o better. hat
ccount,
which have
labeled he
information-processing
mperative Cohen
forthcoming,
chap.3)comes o usdirectlyrom he
Enlightenment;
t s
grounded
n
The
Inverse
Relationship
between
Secrecy
and
Privacy
891
This content downloaded from 203.217.177.216 on Wed, 6 Aug 2014 22:33:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Secrecy and Privacy
11/17
a view
of nformation
athering
s
knowledge iscoverylong
fixed,
linear
rajectory
f forward
rogress.
Within
he
frameworkefined
bythe nformation-processingmperative,he nterestngettingnd
using
more
omplete
nformations
presumptively
ational
nd
of
the
utmost
mportance.
he truth alueof he nformations assumed nd
elevated o a level
beyond
deology;
s
a
result,
he
other
work hat
information
rocessing
oes
goes
unaddressednd
usually
nacknowl-
edged.
Information
rocessing
s not a neutral
ctivity,
owever;
t
requires
hoices bout
ategories
nd
priorities
hat re
open
to nterro-
gation
Bowker
nd Star
1999).History
s rifewith
xamples ranging
from
enocide
o nvidious
iscriminationobanal
ales
f
bureaucratic
excess of
he
ways
hat
precise, ranular
nformation
bout
ndividu-
als and
groups
an be turned o
unjust
nd sometimes orrific
nds
(for xample,
Black
2001).
mbued
with he values of
Enlightenment
rationalism,
e tend o
regard
hese
episodes
s unfortunatenoma-
lies,
but
we shouldnot.
As Frederick
chauer
2003) explains, pposi-
tion to entrenched ocietaldiscriminations hardto reconcilewith
commitment
o the
ruth alueof
nformation;
he inebetween seful
heuristics nd
invidious
tereotypes
s
vanishingly
hin.
Sorting
nd
discrimination
re
synonyms;
he
one
entails
he other
Gandy
009:
55-74). rivacy
heorists
endto
think
hatthe solution
o
problems
of
nvidious
iscrimination
s
better
information-based)
etrics or
separating
he nvidious
rameworks
rom he
truthfulnes.
Thus,
or
example,
ior trahilevitz
2008:
376-81)
ontrasts
aluable
informa-
tion withwasteful signals, nd argues hatprivacy olicy hould
encourage
se of
heformer
ather
han
he atter.
hat eemsreason-
able
enough,
ut
tassumes
n
ontological
istinction
etween
he wo
categories
hat oes
not
xist.
Faith n the truth
alue of information
eaches
ts
zenith
n
processes
f risk
management,
ut the
relationship
etween nfor-
mation
rocessing
nd risk s
muchmore
omplicated
han
he
nfor-
mation-processing
mperative
cknowledges.
vents
n the
post-9/11
worldreveala dialecticalrelationship etweennew technological
892
social research
This content downloaded from 203.217.177.216 on Wed, 6 Aug 2014 22:33:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Secrecy and Privacy
12/17
-
8/11/2019 Secrecy and Privacy
13/17
respect
o our
everyday
ehaviors nd transactions
ight ccomplish.
Except
or nformationbout handful f
concededly
ensitive
opics,
it s hard oimaginemeredisclosureltering rajectoriesfbehavior
that
presumptively
lowfrom ur
freewill. Because the liberal elf
exists
utside
f
anyparticular
ontext,
t s hardto understand
hy
changing
hecontext f disclosure hould
hange
ts
privacympact.
Some
commentators
rgue
hat
privacy
erves
dignitary
unc-
tion worth
reserving
otbecause
t affectsur decisions r
actions,
but
because t
pares
ur
feelings.
ithin
ur
political
ulture, owever,
dignitary
nterestsre considerednemic
elative
o
iberty
nterests.
f
thedisclosuresnabled
y
new
technologies
re
thought
o serve
nter-
ests
n market nd
expressive
iberty,
t s
easy
o
conclude hat
iberty
interests
hould
prevail.
rivacy
omesto seemboth
unnecessary
nd
vaguely etrograde,
doomed
ttempt
o hold
backthe
nexorable
ide
of
progress.
What
f,
hough,
t s not
he dea
of
privacy
hat
s the
problem?
What f he
problem,
nstead,
s the
dea
of
the
autonomous, ational,
decontextualizedelfthatprivacy heoretically rotects? lthough
legal
nd
policy
iscourse
lings
o
t,
s
a
descriptive
atter hemodel
of
liberal selfhood
s
increasingly
iscredited
n most other
areas
of
contemporary
hought, anging
rom
hilosophy
o
sociology
o
cultural
tudies o
cognitive
heory.
ormost
ontemporary
hinkers,
itmakes
armore ense
o
speak
of
n
emergent,
elational
ubjectivity
that s
continuallyhaped
nd
reshaped
y verything
o which
we are
exposed.
That
understanding
ovetails
withAltman'smodel
1975)
of
privacys a dialectical rocess fboundary egulationywhich nder-
standings
f elfhood
re constructed
ver
ime.
In
general,
.S.
privacy
cholars
re
deeply
esistant,
ven
hostile,
to the
dea of
the
socially
onstructed
elf.
As
Jeffrey
osen
2000:
166)
puts
t,
I'm free o
think
whatever
likeeven f he
tate r the
phone
company
nows
what read.
hat
rgument
s
a
product
f he
iberal
conception
f
utonomy,ure
nd
simple;
t
posits
hat hoice
negates
social
shaping
nd social
shaping
negates
hoice.
That
understanding
of social
shaping
s far oo
binary,
owever; ocialshapingneed not
894 social
research
This content downloaded from 203.217.177.216 on Wed, 6 Aug 2014 22:33:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Secrecy and Privacy
14/17
entail he
negation
f
self.
Other cholars
onclude hat
privacy
s
itself
n
artifactf
iberal
political heory. ccording
o PeterGalison
andMarthaMinow2005:277-84), ightsfprivacyre nseparablyied
to
the iberal
onception
f
the
autonomous,
repolitical
elf.
They
argue
hat
privacy
s
we
know
t
in
advanced
Western
ocieties)
lti-
mately
will notwithstandhe dissolution fthe iberal elf
diagnosed
by contemporary
ocial
and cultural
heory.
ut he
understanding
f
privacy
s
tied
o
autonomy epresentsnly
ne
possible
onception
f
privacy's
elation o selfhood.
If
boundary egulation lays
critical ole
n
processes
f self-
constitution,
hen
the
relationship
etween
privacy
nd
selfhood
is
more
complex
han either iberal
optimism
r liberal
pessimism
suggests.
have
rgued
hat
One
can
choose o understandhe
autonomous
iberal
elf
and
the dominated
ostmodernistubject
s
irreconcil-
able
opposites,
rone
can
understandhem
s two
equally
implausible)ndpointsn a continuumlongwhich ocial
shaping
nd ndividual
iberty
ombine n
varying ropor-
tions.
Taking
he
atter,
morerealistic
erspective,
ore-
over,
t
s
possible
o meld
contemporary
ritiques
f the
origins
nd
evolution f
subjectivity
ith he
more radi-
tionally
iberal
oncerns hathave
preoccupied
merican
privacy
heorists.
ostmodernistocial nd
cultural
heory
seeks o cultivate critical
tance
oward laims
o knowl-
edge ndself-knowledge.n a societyommittedt east o
the
desirability
f the iberal
deal
of
self-determination,
that
perspective
houldbe an
appealing
ne
Cohen
forth-
coming,
hap.
3).
It s
precisely
n
the
malleable,
nfixed
ature
four
subjectivity
hat
we can
locate the
possibilities
or
meaningful
elf-actualization
nd
social
progress
hat
raditionally
ave
been
among
iberalism'sardi-
nalaspirations.
The Inverse
Relationship
between
Secrecy
and
Privacy
895
This content downloaded from 203.217.177.216 on Wed, 6 Aug 2014 22:33:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Secrecy and Privacy
15/17
On
this account of
subjectivity,rivacy
s
suddenly
armore
important
hanwe as
a
society
ave been
willing
o admit.
This
s so
notbecauseprivacyheltersixed,utonomouselfhood rom hepres-
suresof
change,
but because
t
does
exactly
he
opposite:
t shelters
emergent ubjectivity
rom xternal ffortso
render t
orderly
nd
predictable.
ypreventing
issolution
ftheboundaries
hat
eparate
contexts
nd
spaces
from ne
another,
rivacy
ounteracts
he
nforma-
tional
nd
spatial ogics
f
urveillance,
hich
eekto
mpose grid
f
fixed,
table
meaning
n human
ctivity.
rivacy
idens he nterstices
amongprocesses
f social
shaping, urnishingmergentubjectivity
with
roomfor
play.
Thisenables
the
development
f critical
erspec-
tive,
nd creates
heconditions
or oth
personal
nd social
change.
CONCLUSION
Open
ccess o nformation
s
an
important
nderpinning
four
politi-
cal
culture,
ut critical
ubjectivity
lso is
a
good
thatwe
cannotdo
without.
f
so,
then
privacy
and the
necessary ossibility
f
imits
onknowledge shouldnotbe lightlyurrendered.hepursuit f our
liberal
spirations
equires
hatwe do
precisely
hatwhich ur stron-
gest
iberal nstincts
orbid:
nterrogateegimes
f
ecrecy
hat xist n
both
idesof
the
public-private
ivide,
nd scrutinize
ith
qual rigor
our
deology
f
openness.
REFERENCES
Altman,
rving.
TheEnvironment
nd Social
Behavior:
rivacy,
ersonal
pace,
Territory,rowding.onterey,alif:Brooks/Coleublishing,975.
.
Privacy
egulation:
ulturally
niversal
r
Culturallypecific?
journal
f
ocial
ssues
3:3
(1977):
66-84.
Ball,
Kirstie
.
Exposure:
Exploring
he
Subject
of
Surveillance.
Information,
ommunication,
nd
Society
2:5
(March
2009):
639-657.
Bamberger,
enneth
.
Technologies
f
Compliance:
isk
nd
Regulation
in a
Digital
ge.
exas
aw
Review8:4
March
010):
69-739.
Berners-Lee,
im,
James
endler,
nd
Ora
Lassila.
TheSemantic
Web.
Sdentific
merican
April
001): 4-43.
896
social research
This content downloaded from 203.217.177.216 on Wed, 6 Aug 2014 22:33:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Secrecy and Privacy
16/17
Black,
Edwin. IBM and the
Holocaust: he
Strategic
lliance etween
azi
Germany
nd
America's ost
owerful
orporation.
ew
York: Crown
Books,2001.
Bowker,
Geoffrey
,
and
Susan
Leigh
Star.
orting
hings
ut:
Classification
andlts
Consequences.ambridge:
MIT
Press,
1999.
Brin,
David. The
Transparent
ociety:
ill
Technology
orce
s
o
Choose etween
Privacy
nd
Freedom? ew
York:Basic
Books,
1999.
Chakrabarti, amidh,
nd
Aaron Strauss. Carnival
Booth:
An
Algorithm
for
Defeating
he
Computer-Assisted
assenger
creening ystem.
First
Monday
7:10
(October
2002)
.
Citron,
anielle Keats.
Technological
Due
Process.
Washington
niversity
LawReview
5:6
(2008):
1249-1313.
Cohen,
Julie
E.
Configuring
he
Networked
elf:
opyright,
urveillance,
nd the
Production
f
Networked
pace.
New Haven:
Yale
University
ress,
forthcoming.
Dean,
Jodi. Publicity's
ecret:
How
Technoculture
apitalizes
n
Democracy.
Ithaca:CornellUniversityress, 002.
European
Union. Directive
95/46/EC
f the
European
Parliament nd
of
the
Council of 24
October 1995
on the
Protection f
Individuals
with
Regard
to the
Processing
of
Personal Data
and
on the Free
Movement
f Such Data.
1995
O.J.
L 281):
31.
Freedom f
nformation
ct.
PublicLaw
No.
89-554, 0,
Stat.
383
(codified
as
amended at 5
U.S.C
552(b)(l)-(7)).
Galison,Peter,
nd
Martha
Minow. Our
Privacy,
urselves
n
an
Age
of
Technological ntrusions. umanRightsnd the War nTerror. d.
Richard
Ashby
Wilson. New
York:
Cambridge
University
ress,
2005:
258-294.
Gandy,
Oscar
H.,
Jr. Coming
o
Termswith
Chance:
Engaging
Rational
Discriminationnd
Cumulative
isadvantage.
New
York:
Ashgate
Publishing,
009.
Haggerty,
evin
D.,
and
RichardV.
Ericson. The
Surveillant
ssemblage.
British
ournal
fSodology
1:4
(2000):
605-622.
Hoofhagle,
Chris
Jay.
Big
Brother's ittle
Helpers.
North arolina
ournal
The
Inverse
Relationship
between
Secrecy
and
Privacy
897
This content downloaded from 203.217.177.216 on Wed, 6 Aug 2014 22:33:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Secrecy and Privacy
17/17
of
nternationalaw
nd Commercial
egulation
9
(Summer 004):
595-637.
Mann, teveason Nolan, ndBanyWellman.Sousveillance:nventing
and
Using
Wearable
Computing
evicesfor
Data
Collection
n
Surveillance
nvironments.
urveillance
nd
Society
:3
(2003):
331-355.
Nissenbaum,
Helen.
Privacy
n
Context:
echnology,olicy,
nd the
ntegrityf
Social
ife.
tanford:tanford
niversity
ress,
009.
Organization
or
Economic
Cooperation
nd
Development
OECD).
OECD
Guidelines n
the
Protection
f
Privacy
nd Transborder
Flows f
Personal ata
September
3,
1980)
.
Rosen,
Jeffrey.
he
Unwanted
aze:
TheDestruction
f
rivacy
nAmerica.
ew
York:
andom
ouse,
000.
Schauer,
Frederick.
rofiles,
robabilities,
nd
Stereotypes.
ambridge:
Harvard
niversity
ress/Belknap
ress,
003.
Strahilevitz,iorJacob.Privacyersus ntidiscrimination.niversityf
Chicago
aw
Review5:1
Winter
008):
363-81.
Westin,
lanF.
Privacy
nd
reedom.
ewYork:
theneum,
967.
Zittrain,
onathan.
he uture
f
henternet-
nd
ow
o
top
t.NewHaven:
Yale
University
ress,
008.
898
social
research