Most Helpful Customer Reviews
32 of 41 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Dimensions of Privacy, June 6, 2000
I have a problem with the subtitle ("The Destruction of Privacy") because my definition of privacy seems to be more inclusive than is Rosen's. He is quite correct when expressing concern about what we both view as abuses of the Fourth Amendment, especially in recent years because of the WWW. I also agree with him that, in a litigious society, the sexual-harassment law has motivated many people to assert that all forms of offensive behavior are ipso facto illegal. But has privacy been destroyed or, at least, is it in imminent danger of being destroyed? I don't think so. I define privacy to include thoughts and feelings to which we can control access by another person. There are certain areas within the human mind and heart which can never be penetrated by an electronic device. However unwelcome an "unwanted gaze" may be, however offensive or even illegal another person's behavior may be, one's private or personal "space" need not be penetrated...unless with permission. Rosen raises a number of important issues. He supports his assertions (especially those concerning the sexual-harassment law) with solid examples. I share his concern about abuses of information which have been made possible by various electronic devices. I share his contempt for any behavior which violates human dignity. As previously indicated, my definition of privacy is apparently more inclusive than is his. We also seem to differ on the purpose of privacy. For Rosen, privacy is defined by "social boundaries that protect us from being simplified and objectified and judged out of context." For me, privacy exists within four different dimensions (physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual) and its purpose is to help define one's identity and nourish one's dignity. Laws should protect us from threats which are illegal...and social rejection should protect us from threats which are offensive. What are your own thoughts about all this? Read Rosen's book. You may have your own disagreements with him on certain points but I think you will share my appreciation of the information and opinions he shares.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
10 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
the right to be let alone is in crisis, July 22, 2000
We owe Jeffry Rosen an enormous debt for joining issue on a matter of vital importance to the future of America. As we rush headlong into a new but uncertain age, it is becoming increasingly clear that in our zeal to promote the marvels of the Internet, we may be seriously eroding the fundamental rights of the average citizen and consumer. Freedoms that Americans have so long cherished and expected are being undermined everyday not only by both internet entrepreneurs and global corporations, but sadly by our own government. At stake ,as Professor Rosen points out is much more than merely occasional abuses of our more traditional concept of privacy, i.e. the right to protect confidential personal information from disclosure. Rather our more fundamental, constitutional "right to be let alone,"-- the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness without unwarranted scrutiny, physical or electronic invasion, is being assaulted by the proliferation of surreptitious data gathering on the Internet. At stake is much more than merely occasional abuses of our more traditional concept of privacy, i.e. the right to protect confidential personal information from disclosure. Rather our more fundamental, constitutional "right to be let alone,"-- the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness without unwarranted scrutiny, physical or electronic invasion, is being assaulted by the proliferation of surreptitious data gathering on the Internet. While a handful of legislators have expressed concern, the majority of Congress, administration officials and industry spokesmen have suggested only technical solutions. And it is true there are some ingenious software programs coming downstream. Companies like Zero Knowledge Systems in Montreal have software which allows you to disguise yourself on the web. Some software will block all the cookies from being placed on your hard drive or erase the ones you have -- but you will of course be locked out from going back to the site again. Other companies like Disappearing Ink use encryption technology to make it extremely difficult for anyone to retrieve your email after it has been deleted. Most people, by the way, still think when they hit the delete key, it's gone. Not so in the world of cyberspace as even Bill Gates discovered when confronted with some of his e-mail during the course of the Microsoft antitrust proceeding. But technology alone is not the solution. Jeffrey Rosen believes "the battle for privacy must be fought on many fronts -- legal, political and technological -- and each new assault must be vigilantly resisted as it occurs." He is optimistic that Americans, who have a history of rising to the occasion when they are outraged, will demand governmental action. But others are less sanguine. Privacy, they argue, is dead. Too many Americans have already compromised their personal rights for a free six-pack of Coke or a membership in a frequent-buyer program. Most are not even aware they are so vulnerable. Thus it is very unclear what support there is for national privacy legislation. While the Clinton Administration made it clear to the FTC that their call for a privacy bill of rights was premature, and Vice President Gore once called for an electronic bill of rights, neither he nor Bush have taken strong positions during this campaign to make privacy an issue of national public importance. Most of the developed countries in the world -- after having experienced public controversy over the treatment of personal information and personal information systems -- have now developed legislation and policy and a response mechanism. So-called Data Protection Boards or Privacy Protection Commissions have been established to act as independent privacy ombudsmen defending individuals and investigating the workings of personal data systems maintained by government agencies or commercial firms. "It seems strange," David Flaherty, author of "Protecting Privacy in Surveillance Societies" put it, "that some countries have independent agencies to protect privacy. In America you have to protect your own. " America need not rush out to create a new bureaucracy to mimic Europe's approach to solving the privacy dilemma, but Americans deserve much more respect from the institutions, both public and private, that serve them. At the least, the President-this one or the next-- must create A National Privacy Protection Study Commission as both Nixon and Ford did to get to the heart of the commercially driven privacy issues and make their recommendations to the President and the Congress. Only at the national level in a publicly appointed body will we get at the truth of our concerns and forge solutions under the watchful eye of the body politic and the press. Secondly we should insist that at minimum, the Federal Trade Commission's recommendations outlined in their report to Congress be embraced and the commission be directed to set the standards in the four areas they called for: notification about the use of personal data; consumers choices about the use of such information; the right of individuals to review data about themselves; and security measures to prevent unauthorized disclosure. It would be ironic and sad if the same constitution which created a free press and a free enterprise system enabling the robust knowledge economy we now admire, was somehow responsible for the massive loss of personal privacy we are witnessing and with it a demise of more fundamental freedoms of our democratic society. Eger, a telecommunications lawyer and Lionel Van Deerlin Professor of Communications and Public Policy at San Diego State University, was telecommunications advisor to Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
7 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Legal, Technological, and Cultural Look at Improving Privacy, August 12, 2000
The author finds our privacy under assault by the courts, by new technology, and by changing cultural attitudes. He uses this book to show that we have less privacy now than people did in the United States in the 18th and 19th centuries, and that we will soon have even less unless new approaches are designed. For example, material that would be private if spoken to another person can often be subpoened and written about in the newspaper if included in an electronic note to yourself or in a personal diary. This trend is viewed negatively for exposing what we think are private moments to public scrutiny in embarrassing ways that harm our relationships with others, despite having done nothing wrong. The other harm he cites is the increased stress we feel in having fewer places to let down our hair in private. The legal challenge comes primarily from sexual harassment legislation that permits extensive investigation into the sexual behavior and thoughts of defendants and those they come into contact with. For public officials, this is compounded by the Independent Counsel statute. For everyone, a general restriction in constitutional liberties is involved. As a substitute, the author suggests letting these areas be covered by privacy statutes and precedents for protecting plaintiffs and defendants. The technology challenge is related to electronic records, which can easily be captured (even if they are private). Court cases have permitted unsent messages and erased messages to be exposed in public. He encourages greater use of encryption, limits of court intervention, and letting employees have realms of electronic privacy at work. Culturally, he argues that the nation has taken steps that are too strong to reduce sexual harassment, and that the results are worse than the original problem because witnesses and innocent parties often experience strong harms as a result. He sees this as a reversal in a many centuries trend towards more and more individual privacy and less and less privacy for public figures. For many, this book will be controversial because he offer refers to the Paula Jones case against President Clinton and the subsequent investigations by Special Counsel, Kenneth Starr. Many of the people who lost their privacy in these cases are not exactly popular figures for what they did, which will cloud the arguments. However, he also looks at other famous cases which round out his arguments in more satisfying ways. I was interested in his argument that public censure rather than legal remedies should play more of a role in enforcing desirable public behavior. Anyone who is not a lawyer will find the arguments here probably a bit too much like a law review article, although they are made about as reader friendly as legal arguments can be made. Lawyers who have studied the progress of the right to privacy in its historical context in advertising, birth control, and protection for private conversations will no doubt be shocked by how much those rights have been eroded in recent years. Those who feel strongly in favor of national security and stopping sexual harassment will probably disagree with this book. But they will probably benefit from understanding what the potential cost of losing privacy may be from this book. I was particularly impressed by his argument that much information taken from a private into a public context will be misunderstood. We will not always have a chance to explain our side, especially as witnesses in public trials or as subjects of journalistic articles. The damage can be severe and lasting. For example, the author cites a case of a man who was described as being a lousy date on the Internet. A woman who read this information just before her first date could not keep it out of her mind, which included an unflattering description of the man's private physique and love-making characteristics. Looking ahead, I think we can assume that privacy will be even more challenged in the future. This is a good time to be having this debate, and taking appropriate action. The establishment of massive databases about individual behavior represents grave potential harm to each of us. This would be a good subject for debate in the current presidential election. Overcome your misconception about how much privacy you have left, and what you can safely do in private! We need our privacy to function well in our personal and professional lives. Otherwise, our civilization will be stalled even more than it is today. What solutions do you favor?
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
