Download - Secrecy and Privacy

8/11/2019 Secrecy and Privacy

1/17


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


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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



12/17


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



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



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



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



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

Download - Secrecy and Privacy

Top Related