Customer Reviews

The Unwanted Gaze: The Destruction of Privacy in America

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

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.

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.

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?

Let me get my two main criticisms of Rosen's book out of the way first: 1) I am not a legal scholar (or a lawyer), and found the book to be a little too technical, even somewhat tedious at times, although it is basically well written and even impassioned; and 2) I also thought the book focused somewhat obsessively on one particular privacy-related issue ("sexual harassment"), and specifically the argument that much of what we classify as sexual harassment would be better dealt with as "invasion of privacy." I felt like this could have been summarized in a few pages and not have taken up half the book!

Despite these criticisms, overall I found this book to be very interesting and helpful in focusing the mind on the important issue of privacy - its importance and its potential erosion (even destruction) in America today. As far back as medieval times, we learn from Rosen, authorities routinely ruled that potential injury to a neighbor's privacy meant that a window looking out onto a common courtyard "had to be removed even if the individuals whose privacy was violated failed to protest." Rosen also introduces us to the fascinating Talmudic concept of "Hezzek Re'iyyah" (the "injury caused by seeing"), which basically says that even a small invasion of privacy causes damage.

Rosen's discussion of privacy in cyberspace is very interesting and timely. Rosen points out how, every time you use the internet, you are leaving a trail (an "electronic footprint" of "cookies") which is recorded - whether by a private company or the government -- and which makes it possible for someone to (as Rosen puts it) "trace nearly everything we read, write, browse, and buy."

A big part of the problem facing privacy in America today, as Rosen points out, is that technology keeps racing ahead, allowing for greater and greater monitoring of our every move. Given this, Rosen frames the question as following: "will we be passive in the face of technological determinism" or not? Today it is possible for your employer to monitor literally every keystroke you hit on your computer keyboard, to read all your e-mails, to monitor your phone conversations, etc. Just thinking about this makes me somewhat tense, and, indeed, according to Rosen, studies show that workers who are being monitored electronically have "higher levels of depression, tension, and anxiety" than unmonitored employees. Interestingly, Rosen points out, the monitored employees also appear to be less productive than the unmonitored ones as well, so all this monitoring apparently doesn't even help - and may even hurt - the company's bottom line!

In sum, Rosen's book lays out the case that privacy - so important for the many reasons which Rosen explains -- is today under siege. Where are the "backstage" areas to let our hair down, remove our `masks" and be ourselves, Rosen asks? Are we all just characters on "The Truman Show" (or "Survivor" or "The Real World")? How can we optimally pursue, as Rosen puts it, "the capacity for creativity...the development of self and soul, understanding, friendship, and even love" in a world where we can never be sure of privacy? Where is there a place for human eccentricity, individuality, and ultimately, freedom, in a world where everyone is subject to constant surveillance (like Jeremy Bentham's "Panopticon")? And, Rosen asks, who would want to live in such a world? If you find any of this interesting, I recommend that you read "The Unwanted Gaze."

Found Rosen's appearance on CSpan to discuss this book a bit of a put off in regard to reading it. He's hot to trot on Lewinski's computer but made no mention of The Defense Dept.'s release of Tripp's FBI files to Jane Mayer of the New Yorker magazine by Mr. Bacon who holds a big position under Sec. Cohen or the congressman from Washington State who released surrepitiously obtained recordings by party hacks to the Wash. Post. If you can't trust the pentagon or the congress to abide by rules of privacy why complain if Macy's tells Gimbels. I doubt that Rosen mentions these severe infractions of privacy laws in his book. If such are omitted what do we have revealed that exceeds the violations above mentioned.

Jeff rosen has helped us join issue on a matter of vtal public concern to all Americans.

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.

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 suggest only technical solutions. 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.

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.

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, Lionel Van Deerlin Professor of Communications and Public Policy at San Diego State University, was telecommunications advisor to Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.

Unfortunately, the author has a very limited and single-minded approach. He seems unable to fully investigate or accept issues in a way that would most inform and assist readers. He seems to have a fixed agenda, and is limited in his ability to think and adapt. I saw him interviewed, and he wasn't able to break away from the script long enough to answer one single question.

This type of thinking is risky and limited, especially considering the importance of the issue being discussed.

If you read this book, make sure you also explore other books and articles on the subject. These will be needed both to fully protect yourself, and to be fully informed on the issue.

brilliantly argued, beautifully written, this book changed my life and the way i see the world. i never realized the relentless, often unobservable invasions of privacy all around me. rosen documents these incursions and offers meaningful, realistic solutions. above all, this is a book filled with humanity, humor, and insight. i feel the better for reading it. Thank you professor rosen.

I bought this book expecting something more than opinion on database policy, and was never able to force myself to finish it. I found no evidence that the author has ever realized that coercive, devastating assaults on our privacy can be conducted by our neighbors, friends, and co-workers using radio technology and other covert surveillance devices.

Despite the over-riding fear of big brother--both government and corporate--the people who know us, even if we do not know them, constitute the greatest unrecognized threat to our privacy. They are the ones who can really "hit us where we live". Most serious crimes are committed by those closest to us.

Unfortunately, both public policy and privacy advocates seem to lack awareness of the destructiveness and availability of cheap electronic surveillance components, and the almost impossible task of escaping from this type of "unwanted gaze".

We need authors like Jeffrey Rosen to consider the impact of having their voices and images recorded and broadcast without our knowledge. They should then go shopping. Manuals, devices, and tips for the destruction of personal privacy are mass produced and widely available for ridiculously low fees. Manuals, devices, and policy to protect individuals against violations by other individuals are completely ineffectual. If a victim is not a public figure, authorities, including lawyers, will not even hear the complaints. There is currently no defense, private or governmental, against this particular brand of urban terrorism...

It's a given that government and major corporations will violate our privacy in the course of their everday endeavors. The average citizen will probably never be able to catch them, much less stop them, and will probably suffer little harm. The same is not true when your neighbor buys an illegal scanner and tapes your phone calls or hides a wireless camera in your bedroom and publishes it on the internet.

One important policy concern: Law enforcement, corporations, and government-in-general have a large stake in persuading the populace this technology is restricted to "authorized users" and that common access and abuse of electronic technology is still science fiction...If we keep believing this technology isn't being misused by our neighbors, we won't cry out for laws that make it more difficult for the powers that be to continue abusing their access to our lives.

Ever wonder why Monica Lewinski's private life could be held up to public scorn when she was never charged with a crime nor was even the target of a law suit? Ever wonder what has happened to the 4rth amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures? Are you baffled by the social straight jacket that "Sexual Harassment" law has imposed on both men and women in the work place? Then read Professor Rosen's book. Well researched, clearly written for the layman, in a little over 200 pages, Jeffrey Rosen explains how privacy rights have been eroded and why personal privacy is so critical for the functioning of a free society.