Minted - Shop now
Buy used:
$2.19
$3.98 delivery Monday, February 24. Details
Used: Very Good | Details
Condition: Used: Very Good
Comment: Very Good
Access codes and supplements are not guaranteed with used items.
Kindle app logo image

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

QR code to download the Kindle App

Follow the author

Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.

The Unwanted Gaze: The Destruction of Privacy in America Hardcover – May 30, 2000

4.4 4.4 out of 5 stars 13 ratings

As thinking, writing, and gossip increasingly take place in cyberspace, the part of our life that can be monitored and searched has vastly expanded. E-mail, even after it is deleted, becomes a permanent record that can be resurrected by employers or prosecutors at any point in the future. On the Internet, every website we visit, every store we browse in, every magazine we skim--and the amount of time we skim it--create electronic footprints that can be traced back to us, revealing detailed patterns about our tastes, preferences, and intimate thoughts.
        
In this pathbreaking book, Jeffrey Rosen explores the legal, technological, and cultural changes that have undermined our ability to control how much personal information about ourselves is communicated to others, and he proposes ways of reconstructing some of the zones of privacy that law and technology have been allowed to invade. In the eighteenth century, when the Bill of Rights was drafted, the spectacle of state agents breaking into a citizen's home and rummaging through his or her private diaries was considered the paradigm case of an unconstitutional search and seizure. But during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, prosecutors were able to subpoena Monica Lewinsky's bookstore receipts and to retrieve unsent love letters from her home computer. And the sense of violation that Monica Lewinsky experienced is not unique. In a world in which everything that Americans read, write, and buy can be recorded and monitored in cyberspace, there is a growing danger that intimate personal information originally disclosed only to our friends and colleagues may be exposed to--and misinterpreted by--a less understanding audience of strangers.
        
Privacy is important, Rosen argues, because it protects us from being judged out of context in a world of short attention spans, a world in which isolated bits of intimate information can be confused with genuine knowledge. Rosen  also examines the expansion of sexual-harassment law that has given employers an incentive to monitor our e-mail, Internet browsing habits, and office romances. And he suggests that some forms of offensive speech in the workplace--including the indignities allegedly suffered by Paula Jones and Anita Hill--are better conceived of as invasions of privacy than as examples of sex discrimination. Combining discussions of current events--from Kenneth Starr's tapes to DoubleClick's on-line profiles--with inno-vative legal and cultural analysis,
The Unwanted Gaze offers a powerful challenge to Americans to be proactive in the face of new threats to privacy in the twenty-first century.
The%20Amazon%20Book%20Review
The Amazon Book Review
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review

George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen offers a vigorous defense of privacy in this book inspired by "the constitutional, legal, and political drama that culminated in the impeachment and acquittal of President Bill Clinton." He is particularly piqued at Ken Starr's investigation of Monica Lewinsky's private life, including her book-buying habits and the love letters she stored on her computer but never sent. "Privacy protects us from being misdefined and judged out of context in a world of short attention spans, a world in which information can easily be confused with knowledge," writes Rosen, who is also a legal affairs writer for The New Republic. "In such a world, it is easy for individuals to be victimized by the reductionist fallacy that the worst truth about them is also the most important truth."

Rosen has two overriding concerns: how sexual-harassment law has underwritten invasions of privacy (it was Paula Jones's suit against Clinton, after all, that led to the Lewinsky revelations), and how the Internet threatens anonymity (he criticizes, for instance, Amazon.com's "creepy feature that uses ZIP codes and domain names to identify the most popular books purchased on-line by employees at prominent corporations"). Much of The Unwanted Gaze reads like a law review article--albeit one written with the storytelling touch of a professional reporter--and at times Rosen seems to aim mainly for an academic audience. Yet the book remains entirely open to lay readers, especially when Rosen delivers his impassioned apologies for privacy: "There are dangers to pathological lying, but there are also dangers to pathological truth-telling. Privacy is a form of opacity, and opacity has its values. We need more shades and more blinds and more virtual curtains. Someday, perhaps, we will look back with nostalgia on a society that still believed opacity was possible and was shocked to discover what happens when it is not." Rosen is a sharp thinker with a knack for conveying complex ideas through readable prose. --John J. Miller

From Publishers Weekly

Why were Paula Jones's lawyers "permitted to go on a fishing expedition into the President's sexual history?" Why was Kenneth Starr able to subpoena store records of books Monica Lewinsky had purchased? Why was he able to retrieve unsent love letters on her home computer? The erosion of privacy in American life, as demonstrated by the Clinton/Lewinsky case, is at the heart of this thoughtful, legally complex study by Rosen, a law professor and editor at the New Republic. Using the Clinton/Lewinsky and Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill affair, along with other case studies, he eloquently addresses why protecting individual privacy matters, what will be lost if we accede to its destruction, how the current state of affairs came to be and what can be done to recapture our lost privacy. Arguing that our collective loss of privacy has corrupted public discourse, the health of our workplaces and the well-being of our most intimate relationships, Rosen presents a strikingly original analysis of the legal, technological and social developments that have converged to justify invasive intrusions into our lives. Specifically, he argues that the archaic conceptual basis for privacy law and the extension of sexual harassment law to include "hostile workplaces" (where no explicit sexual advances occur) as a form of sexual discrimination are both blameworthy, and that the Internet is complicit. His critique of "hostile workplace" law is sure to stir up controversy. And many observers will think he's gone too far when he suggests, among other things, that what Clinton allegedly did to Paula JonesAexposing himself, making a crude remarkAshouldn't be treated, legally, as sexual harassment. But Rosen's text is timely and will shape debate. And to his credit, he forgoes the traditional hand-wringing and offers creative and practical suggestions for a corrective course of action. (June)
Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Product details

  • Publisher ‏ : ‎ Random House; 1st edition (May 30, 2000)
  • Language ‏ : ‎ English
  • Hardcover ‏ : ‎ 288 pages
  • ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0679445463
  • ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0679445463
  • Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 1 pounds
  • Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 6.5 x 1 x 8.75 inches
  • Customer Reviews:
    4.4 4.4 out of 5 stars 13 ratings

About the author

Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Jeffrey Rosen
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read book recommendations and more.

Customer reviews

4.4 out of 5 stars
13 global ratings

Review this product

Share your thoughts with other customers

Top reviews from the United States

  • Reviewed in the United States on July 4, 2000
    I share Jeffrey Rosen's anger over the victimization of Lawrence Lessig. The Harvard University Law scholar's humorous and casual remarks about the software giant were unethically taken out of context. This resulted in forcing Lessig to resign his post as the Microsoft "special master." It is, however, an earlier incident ignored by Rosen that requires our current attention. During the murder trial of O.J. Simpson, Detective Mark Furhman was viciously attacked for using the "n" word. The Liberal media had a field day deriding this man for simply employing the word regardless of how it might have been used in a conversation. Rosen warns us to be wary of taking statements out of context. Yet, few legal scholars, if any, realized the precedent being set during the lynching of Detective Furhman. The Afro-American comedian, Chris Rock, never hesitates to joke about "niggers" and he is paid well for doing so. I have heard the "n" word used warmly between black males often in my life. Furhman, however, was not allowed the opportunity to explain the context of his words. Johnny Cochrane was permitted in a court of law to demand of Furhman if the latter had simply ever uttered the "n" word. Judge Ito disgracefully allowed Cochrane to get away with this outrage. The law departments of our major universities shamed themselves by their silence.
    Words are intrinsically nebulous. Language is a discipline belonging primarily to the Liberal Arts, and not the hard sciences. There is inherently no such thing as the unchanging and absolute meaning of any word. Literal language does not exist on our planet. The absolute letter of the law is a senseless concept. Ultimately, the spirit of the law is all we have separating us from Armageddon. It is merely a matter of the probability or outside possibility of how certain words are to be interpreted. This why I also argue that we will never engage, Bill Joy notwithstanding, in a give and take conversation with a computer. Stanley Kubrick's "HAL," will forevermore remain a fictional character. The meaning of a particular word is always subjective. This is neither the time and place for me to go into greater detail, but the philosophical deconstructionists mistakenly conclude that we should therefore abandon ourselves to nihilistic relativism and unbridled skepticism. Nevertheless, words are of no value unless put into proper context. It is both the logical and moral duty of individuals to make sure that they do their best to prudentially understand the whole context of another's words.
    Professor Rosen should invest time and energy reevaluating our almost sacred doctrinal adherence to our adversarial legal system. His concerns regarding privacy issues make little sense unless the very premise of our system of justice is taken to task. The disgusting and vile doctrine encourages the ruthless disregard of truth and justice. Our adversarial legal system inevitably deteriorates into something akin to a game with debatable rules in which only victory at any cost is to be valued. Laws based on an adversarial set of guidelines eventually seduce the wider culture. This encourages the mindset that anything and everything goes as long as one cannot be arrested or sued for their misbehavior. Originally in our nation's history, the destruction of the adversarial principle was limited because of a tacit agreement not to abuse the system. In the 21st Century, though, attorneys normally lie and offer the excuse that their words might through a bizarre interpretation mean the opposite of their common usage. President Bill Clinton, for instance, is a splendid example of this decline when he lied about having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Vigorous advocacy of our rights is appropriate and mandatory if our democratic society is to survive. I strongly reject the concept that an individual should be presumed guilty until proven innocent. It is foolish, however, to pretend that we must either embrace the evil principle of adversarial justice, or American Democracy is unsustainable. The less extreme principle of vigorous advocacy is pragmatic and workable. I suggest that Jeffrey Rosen tackle this subject in his future writings. It behooves Rosen to go a bit deeper into the subject of privacy. His present book is well done, but it essentially puts the proverbial cart before the horse.
    3 people found this helpful
    Report
  • Reviewed in the United States on October 7, 2015
    This book is still remarkably relevant to current problems about privacy. It is the most detailed and well worked out discussion of the psychological effects of the "omniopticon"--everyone watching everyone. In contrast, most current critiques of contemporary surveillance focus on--the genuine and important--problems of the lack of free and informed consent to data collection, and the use of information to in ways that unjustifiably harm individuals and groups.
    One person found this helpful
    Report
  • Reviewed in the United States on August 12, 2016
    After reading Rosen's bio of Louis Brandeis, this one was a bit of a disappointment, mixing a professional view of jurisprudence with a lot of amateur sociology. That may be reflective of the privacy topic. It doesn't seem that the SC or any government agency is doing any better. The book starts with the Brandeis-Warren paper defining privacy as the right to be left alone. We have not seen much progress since. Sexual harassment is hard to define and easy to spin, privacy in cyberspace is traded with security considerations, and libel laws are excessively vague. The book presents background from the prior century or two with John Wilkes, Lord Camden, Oscar Wilde, Queen Caroline and more recent cases of Bill Clinton, Clarence Thomas and John Packwood.
    J.S. Mill observed that the tyranny of social conformity is worse than the threat of law. It seems to me that we were better off when ostracism was effective. Though lacking modern concept of justice, it was more effective than subsequent legislation in controlling socially deviant entitlements and pregnancy. The book illustrates the inefficacy of legislation and jurisprudence to compensate for liberal sociology.
  • Reviewed in the United States on December 6, 2000
    Jeffrey Rosen, author of THE UNWANTED GAZE (2000), went to Harvard College, Oxford U. (Balliol College....the book jacket doesn't say if he were a Rhodes Scholar like President Clinton was, but probably he was), and finally (again like President Clinton), Yale Law School. Also, like Mr. Clinton, Mr. Rosen taught (still teaches) law school at Washington, D.C.'s excellent and underrated Geroge Washington University. Need we say more? If EVER an overachiever walked the face of the planet, Mr. Rosen certainly fits the that description. Beyond question, he is one smart dude!
    His excellent book, THE UNWANTED GAZE (about privacy invasion by computers...and evil people invading YOUR PRIVACY using computers), is worth buying from Amazon.Com and reading again and again.
    This is easier said than done. Simply possessing the book and finding a quiet place to read it doesn't deliver the information Rosen offers (worth having once gotten) easily. His book is about an immensely complicated subject, and even though Rosen is a genious (really!) law professor, etc., etc., tackling his book ain't easy.
    The result is that, through no fault of his own (he's breaking very thick and important ice), his book is extremely difficult to read and digest.
    Read it anyway.
    You'll learn a lot about an important subject.
    Here's what his book is about:
    As thinking, writing, and gossip increasingly take place in cyberspace, the part of our life that can be monitored and searched has vastly expanded. E-Mail, for instance (the most used and most famous form of cyberspace use), even after it is deleted, becomes a PERMANENT record that can be resurrected by employers or prosecutors (district attorneys, cops, the FBI, the CIA....you know....those guys, and for the past 30 years, those girls) at ANY point in the future. Cyberspace doesn't give a damn about paper deterioration, etc. Cyberspace is a WHOLE NEW media ball game with brand new rules!
    On the Internet, EVERY website we visit, every store we browse in, every magazine we skim...AND the AMOUNT OF TIME we skim it...create electronic FOOTPRINTS that can be traced back to us, revealing detailed patterns about our tastes, preferences, and intimate thoughts (example...I visit public libraries very often and use library computers and Internet services....cops checking up on me who trace writings like the one you are now reading...composed in a Maryland public library...and see a pattern of public library use).
    The brilliant Mr. Rosen (a smart lawyer you ought to hire if you get in trouble) explores the legal, technological, and cultural changes that have undermined our ability to control how much personal information about ourselves is communicated to others. He proposes ways of reconstructing some of the zones of privacy that law and technology have been allowed to invade (computers, the Internet, etc. ALONE don't do evil things and victimize people without help....it takes bad guys and gals USING computers, the Internet, etc. to do us dirty and invade out privacy).
    Poor gorgeous, big busted Monica Lewinsky, the Linda Lovelace of the Whitehouse, is the main example Mr. Rosen uses to illustrate his worthwhile point. If Mr. Rosen is a comic book example of an overachiever (see above stated educational credentials if you doubt he is an overachiever), Ms. Lewinsky is the comic book provider of oral sex to highly place politicians, certainly eclipsing Linda Lovelace and others you may have heard about. She got famous for this, and thus is easy to relate to.
    For this reason, perhaps, Mr. Rosen, uses her. He does so brilliantly to show how legal types and nosy types got away with invading her privacy using computers and the Internet. Ms. Lewinsky was not regarded sympathetically by the media, and perhaps for this reason, the VIOLATION of HER RIGHTS to privacy was ignored as a journalistic topic. She was, in the male chauvinist mentality of the times, simply regarded as an appendage of the OTHER villain in the Clinton/Lewinsky story, Mr. Clinton, destined to become the most famous sex act President in U.S. history (it will be hard for future sex abuse Presidents to top his act).
    Mr. Rosen plays the gentleman, and defends Ms. Lewinsky, especially her violated rights to privacy. These rights were invaded when her computer use (to buy books, to write her diary, to send E-Mail communications, etc.) was used AGAINST her (in order to make Mr. Clinton look bad) in flagrant VIOLATION of her rights to free speech and privacy.
    Mr. Rosen makes the dubious legal analysis that women seeking redress from sexual harrassment abuses, such as those suffered by Paula Jones and Anita Hill, should trash sexual harrassment charges and instead charge invasion of privacy. This is one of the very few few weak parts of Rosen's book or thinking, but it is such spectacular balderdash that it is worth mentioning.
    The author of THE UNWANTED GAZE (title taken from the "Encyclopedia Talmudit," not to be confused with the Talmud) discusses Kenneth Starr's tapes and DoubleClick's (DoubleClick is the world's largest Internet advertising company at present....buy its stock if you want to get rich quick) on-line profiles (they probably have mine gotten from Amazon.Com and also from HotMail, both of whom successfully solicited "profiles" ,i.e. autobiographies, from me).
    This smart Yale lawyer prepared by Oxford and Harvard REALLY covers the waterfront.
    The result is that readers like me get very scared of the Internet, and start returning to use of OTHER information sources nutty FBI loose cogs (like G. Gordon Liddy and J. Edgar Hoover) can't trace so easily. For instance, NOW, when I want to communicate with one of my celebrity friends, I use the public library's copy of WHO'S WHO IN AMERICA.....their PRINT copy, NOT their on-line copy. THAT WAY bad guys don't know who I'm sending nasty notes to, or nice notes, as the case may be.
    Staying away from the Internet might be a healthy thing. Personally, I don't plan to, but you might consider the idea. You'll probably last longer than I will.
    2 people found this helpful
    Report
  • Reviewed in the United States on December 29, 2014
    Interesting, important subject.