4540882

7/28/2019 4540882

1/25

The Evolution (Or Devolution) of PrivacyAuthor(s): Debbie V. S. KasperSource: Sociological Forum, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Mar., 2005), pp. 69-92Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4540882 .

Accessed: 01/07/2013 16:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Springeris collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological Forum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 169.232.178.121 on Mon, 1 Jul 2013 16:19:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4540882?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://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.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4540882?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer

7/28/2019 4540882

2/25

SociologicalForum,Vol.20,No. 1,March2005(2005)DOI: 10.1007/s11206-005-1898-z

The Evolution(or Devolution) of PrivacyDebbie V. S. Kasper1

Thispaper explores changes in the meaning of privacy. Because individuals'understandings and experiences of privacy vary by sociohistorical contexts,privacy is difficultto define and even more challenging to measure.Avoidingcommon obstacles toprivacy research,I examineprivacy from thestandpointof its invasion. I develop a typology of privacy invasions and use it to analyzediscussions of invasions of privacy in U.S. newspapers. I show thatthe natureof invasions discussed in the news is increasingly covert and continuous andfind empirical support for the often-made claim that the concept of privacy isevolving in meaningful ways.KEY WORDS: privacy;invasion of privacy;surveillance; technology.

"You have zero privacy anyway, get over it." This blunt and oft-quotedstatement was the retort of Scott McNealy, Sun Microsystems CEO, whenquestioned about the potential privacy breaches of new networking tech-nology at apress conference in 1999. Is he right? And if so, does it mean thatpeople once had something familiarly known as privacy? If it is gone, whendid it disappear, and why? McNealy's declaration is probably an exaggera-tion, but it is not by any means unusual. There has been a lot of talk aboutprivacy lately, most of it focusing on privacy's dissolution. But one cannotintelligibly speak about the disappearance of something without knowingwhat that something is-and there seems to be a glaring lack of consensusabout what privacy is and is not.Privacy is one of those commonsense concepts that is understood,on some level, within every human society. To be sure, the meaning ofprivacy and the social conventions surrounding it vary dramatically by1Department of Anthropology and Sociology, 110 Gray, Sweet Briar College, Sweet Briar,Virginia; e-mail: [email protected].

690884-8971/05/0300-0069/0 ( 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

This content downloaded from 169.232.178.121 on Mon, 1 Jul 2013 16:19:19 PMAll use subject toJSTOR 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.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

7/28/2019 4540882

3/25

70 Kaspersocio-historical ontext,but anthropological esearchreveals that "atleasta desireforprivacy is]a panhuman rait" Moore,1984:276).The variablenature of the meaningof privacy,as with any componentof nonmaterialculture,makes it difficult o arriveat an exactdefinition.Challengesaside,a fundamentaldefinition rom whichprivacyresearchmaycommonlypro-ceed is crucial,as is anobjectivemeansbywhich o analyzeprivacyas aphe-nomenon withinspecifichistoricaland cultural ontexts.I intend to provideboth:to elucidate he essentialmeaningof privacyby examiningts invasionand to offer a tool usefulforanalyzingprivacyas situated nparticularimesandplaces.

MAKING OF SENSE OF PRIVACYAs existing privacy literature reveals, the notion of privacy inAmericansociety s especiallyproblematic.With somelegalmilestonesact-ing as catalysts, he establishmentof the Western iberal notion of privacyset the stage for a growingawarenessof it in the United Statesin unfore-seenways.With ts codificationn 1890byWarrenand Brandeis's enownedassertion of the "rightto be left alone," the notion of privacytook onnew meaning.Committed o the ongoing "re-molding"f individual ights,

Brandeiswas insistent hat the Constitution,as it regardedprivacyprotec-tion, be reinterpretedo extendbeyondthe physical rontiersof body andproperty.Reactingto an unfavorableruling n Olmsteadv. U.S.,277 U.S.438 (1927),he states,The makers of our Constitution ... knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure andsatisfactions of life are to be found in material things.... They conferred, as againstthe Government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights andthe right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiableintrusionbytheGovernment pon heprivacy f theindividual,whatever he meansemployed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And the use ofevidence in a criminalproceeding,of factsascertainedby such intrusionmust bedeemed a violationof the Fifth.(Brandeis,1995:206)It was not untilmany yearslater,in Katz.v. U.S.,389U.S. 347 (1967),that the SupremeCourtdecided thattechnologically nhancedeavesdrop-ping could be consideredan "unreasonable earch."Accordingto JeffreyRosen, however, it did so in a way that underminedBrandeis'spoint.Justice John MarshallHarlan ruled that a person'sreasonableexpecta-tions of privacyshould be sufficient o warrantprotection.But this turnedout to be a blow to privacy.Expectationsreflect the amount of privacypeople subjectivelyexperience,and as technologyrendered more intru-sivesurveillance ossible,expectationsdiminished longwith constitutionalprotections (Rosen, 2000:60-61). In subsequentrulings,the Court held


7/28/2019 4540882

4/25

The Evolution or Devolution)of Privacy 71that,in sharing nformationwithanother,one relinquishesall "reasonableexpectationof privacy"hat the informationwillremainconfidential.SinceBrandeis'snitialargument,privacy's onstitutionaldimensionhasemergedin variousways,and its legal evolution s adumbrated n a select sampleoflandmark ases.

Privacywas frequentlyinvoked in cases dealing with protectionofthe physicalbody, but it also becameassociatedwith one's rightto makedecisionsaboutone'sbody. Overturninghe earlierruling nPoe v. Ullman,367 U.S. 497 (1961)-which maintainedthe criminalityof contraceptiveuse by married couples-Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965),decidedthatthe freedomof marriedcouplesto use contraceptivesn theirbedrooms s covered under the constitutional ightto privacy.Shifting heemphasison privacywithinmarriage o the rightsof individualwomen,Eisenstadtv. Baird,405 U.S. 438 (1972),extended the rightsof contracep-tion use to single women, legally recognizing heir bodily sovereignty, osome degree. Roe v. Wade,410 U.S. 113 (1973), broadened this notion,makingit a woman's legal right to decide whether or not to terminatea pregnancy.Sentiments about people's rightsto make decisions aboutsexual behavior and their bodies, however, did not apply equally to alladults. Bowers v. Hardwick,478 U.S. 186 (1986), ruled that homosexualsodomywasnot a rightprotectedunderthe constitutional ightto privacy.The tide recentlychangedwithLawrencev. Texas,539U.S. 02-102 (2003),in whichthe court overturned he decision that heldhomosexualsex to bea criminaloffense.

Moving beyond the realm of the body, privacybegan to apply tomore abstractaspectsof the person. Whalenv. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977),recognized he rightto informationalprivacyand the interestto avoid thedisclosure of personalinformation.The 1994 Right to FinancialPrivacyAct forbidsmostgovernmentaccessto the financialrecordsof individuals.Since then, privacyhas been increasingly nvoked in cases involvingtheprotection of information,reputation,and civil liberties. A swift movein the opposite direction, the Patriot Act-overwhelmingly passed inOctober 2001-augments the powers of government agencies and thepolice regarding nformation-gathering,rrest,and imprisonment,whilemakingit possible to bypass the courts. If we learn nothing else aboutprivacy romthisbriefforay nto its legal history, t is at leastapparent hatprivacy'sstatus as a rightis precarious,dependingon the capriceof thecourts and socialinstitutions.Posingdifficultquestions n more thanjustthe legalrealm,privacybe-camethefocusof anever-widening rrayof issues.Scholarshipnwhichpri-vacy is deemed not only relevant, but central, has multiplied steadily overthe past few decades. A librarysearch regarding the topic of "privacy" eads


7/28/2019 4540882

5/25

72 Kasperone to treatiseson personaldevelopment, ntimacy, he family,feminismand thebody,surveillance,hemedia,business,and nformation-includingdemographic,medical, financial,psychological,genetic, and biographicalinformation.This list is by no meanscomprehensive.Within these works,scholarshavea famouslydifficult imepinningdownthe meaningof such awidelyusedterm.As a generalrule,most introduce heirworkbyciting hisdifficulty.Some makeattempts o defineprivacy,whileotherssimplymoveon. But they all fail to demonstrate,at leastexplicitly,a shared rameworkforunderstanding rivacy.Consequently, rying o discernprivacy's eneralmeaningvia investigationof the literatureprovesa monumental,f not im-possible,task.One mightwonderwhetherdefiningprivacy s a worthwhileendeavor at all, or if perhaps t mightbe best to deal with the conceptona case-by-casebasis as relevantonlywithinnarrowapplications. maintainthat not onlyis it a worthyaim,but it is necessary f privacy s to be a viablearea of research.

PROBLEMSWITHEXISTINGPRIVACY LITERATUREThree main problemshave hindered the establishmentof a unifyingframework or privacystudy.First,the majorityof attemptsto definepri-vacyaremisspecified;hat s,theyfocus eithertoo specifically rtoo broadlyon a particular opic. The result is either a narrowconceptionof privacythatis not generalizableor a definitionso vagueas to be methodologicallyuseless.Second,the definitionsof privacyemployedareculturallyand his-toricallybiased and thusmaynot be applicable o other sociohistorical on-texts.Finally,work on privacy ends to be value-driven.Authors,whetherspeaking n privacy'sdefenseor advocatingts reduction,begintheir workwith strongbiases and have predeterminedgoals, whichnaturallyaffectstheirquestions,data,findings,andconclusions.

MisspecificationScholarstend to defineprivacyas understoodwithin the confines oftheir specificresearch.As a result,theirnotions of privacyare inherentlylimited,andtheyremainunableto capture ts broadermeaning.Regardingmodernbusinesstechnology,for instance,Marcellaand Stuckistate that"privacy.. typicallyapplies o the information-handlingracticesof an or-ganizationand the processingof personal nformation hroughall stagesofits (the information's) ife cycle" (2003:xii).Thoughsome feministsofferqualifieddefenses of privacy, he feministcritiqueof the liberal dealof theprivateas the realmwithinwhichpeople (historicallywomen)have suffered


7/28/2019 4540882

6/25

The Evolution orDevolution)of Privacy 73and also in which others(generallymen) have not been held accountable,is well established.Thisprivacy,CatherineMacKinnon ays, "ispersonal,intimate,autonomous,particular,ndividual, he originalsource and finaloutpostof the self ... in short,definedby everything hat feminismrevealswomen have neverbeen allowed to be or to have"(MacKinnon,1987:99).Privacyas a legal concept, as we have seen, is difficultto contend withand ends in strictlydelimitedcategories.For instance,privacy aw expert,Glenn,claims that two categoriesof privacyexist: tortprivacy,"a privateor civil injury o a person, property,or reputation," nd constitutional ri-vacy,"therightof the individualo be free fromunwantedand unwarrantedgovernmentalntrusionn mattersaffecting undamental ights" 2003:5-6).Suchnarrowlyconstructedconceptionsof privacyare representativeandare,in obviousways,restrictedn theirutility.In contrast,other discussionsof privacyend in vagueness,with tenta-tive definitionsand overlappingclassifications.Gingerly approaching heissue of privacy,FerdinandSchoemangives the title "On Not DefiningPrivacy" o an introductory ection of his book Privacyand Social Free-dom. He prudentlyavoids"strivingor verbalprecision n definingprivacybefore [its]evolutionis playedout,"and he considersparticular ontexts"notbecausethey are representativeof all privacycontexts or controver-sies,"but becausethey are germaneto the issues of his book (Schoeman,1992:11).Schoeman aterdistinguishesbetween two types of privacy,pri-vacy rom,whichrestrictsothers'access,andprivacy or, which allowspeo-ple to develop themselvesand their relationships 156). It is difficulttoimagine,however, hat the lattercould be distinguishednpractice romtheformer.Deckle McLean,examiningprivacyas an essentialfeature of indi-vidual ife, identifies ourtypesof privacy: ccess-control rivacy, ncludingeverything elating o one's information,ts collection,andsurveillance; e-spectprivacy,whichprotectsagainstphysicalor symbolic nsults;room togrowprivacy,which s violated n the "accidental r deliberateunkindness,fromone personto another";andsafetyvalveprivacy,which enables oneto speakone's mind,escape unpleasantpeople, and retreatfrom whateverone feels the need to retreat rom(McLean,1995:121-27).Thesecategoriesare neither exhaustivenor mutuallyexclusive.Finally,Julie Inness distin-guishes between three areas of privacy: intimate information, access, anddecisions.Shedefinesprivacyas "the state of the agent havingcontrolovera realm of intimacy,which containsher decisions aboutintimate access toherself (including ntimateinformationalaccess) and her decisionsaboutherown intimateactions" Inness,1992:56-57). do not contend that thesecharacterizationsf privacyarewrongor not usefulin their ownways,butsuch broad and uncertain treatments do not help to clarify the general con-cept of privacy.


7/28/2019 4540882

7/25

74 KasperCulturalBias

Prevalent n privacyscholarships a culturallyand historicallyboundnotionof privacy mostoften theWestern iberalversion)Suchscholarshipthereforehas restrictedapplicabilityo other culturesand times. Benn andGaus (1983) in their landmark work The Public and the Private: ConceptsandActions,discuss he distinctionbetweenpublicandprivateas a practi-cal one thatorganizes ociallife, its culture,norms,andexpectations.Theymention, almost as an aside, the possibilitythat people in other culturesmayhavetheirown ideas about what thesespheresmightbe and thenpro-ceed to focuson publicandprivate n a waythat is applicableonlyfrom thestandpointof the personas anindividualn the modern iberalsense.MarcGarcelon(1997),offers anotherversion,addressing hangesin the publicandprivaterealms n Russiaand EasternEuropethroughouthe transitionfromcommunist o postcommunist ociety.Alternatives ike this add a use-fuland muchneeded dimension o the privacy iterature, larifyinghe con-cept's meaningwithina significantly ifferentculturalcontext,but they dolittle to remedythe lackof an overallsystemthroughwhich to understandprivacy.

Value-DrivenDespite the ideal of objectivity,scholarsmore often than not frameprivacy n termsof its goods or evils andarguefor its protectionor reduc-tion. In PrivacyandFreedom 1967)Alan Westin,a renownedadvocateofindividualprivacy,analyzes he functionsof, intrusionsnto,and social con-trol effortsregardingprivacy n the United States.He arguesthatconcernaboutdiminishingprivacy s basedin distrustof governmentandbusiness,

andin fears abouttechnologyabuses.Theresoundingheme is that the lossof privacynecessarilympliesthe surrender f freedom.Earlydefendersofprivacy ncludeMyronBrenton,who wrote ThePrivacyInvaders(1964),and Robert Ellis Smith, author of Privacy: How to Protect What's Left ofIt (1979).These were the forerunnersof a growingmovement that wouldcontinue to focus on the dangersof privacy's rosion.Representing he oppositebias,Amitai Etzioni(1999)writesabouttheneed to infringeuponindividualprivacy o ensurepublichealth andsafetyin The Limitsof Privacy.He emphasizesthe harmsthat befall a societywhose members ailto sacrificeprivacy.Offeringno definitionof privacy nthis work,he focuses on the conditions underwhichthe rightto privacyshould be curbed-moral, legal, and social. Etzioni portrays privacy cham-pions as alarmists and accuses them of inadvertently endangering the public


7/28/2019 4540882

8/25

TheEvolution or Devolution)of Privacy 75good. StevenNock (1993, 1998)addresses he necessityof surrendering ri-vacyin a world in which trust s difficult o come by. He arguesthat in ourlarge and complex contemporary ociety, individualshave no criteriabywhich to judge trustworthiness ther than the official credentials hat onemustcarryto get alongin modernlife, though they betray personal nfor-mation. While I do not condemnthe clearpresentationof one's attitudeor agendaregardingprivacy ssues, I arguethat beginningone's analysisof privacywith suchstrongbiases in eitherdirectionnecessarilycolors thequestionsasked and conclusionsdrawn.My intent is not to criticizethe merit of these works,as they all con-tribute, n varyingdegrees,to a greaterunderstanding f privacy. merelywant to demonstratesome frequent problemsencountered n privacyre-search andpoint to the need for commonground.Without a clearunder-standingof whatprivacy s, one is left with no wayto determine ts currentconditionor to observechange.As a result,mytaskhere is twofold: o de-velop an objectivemeans to defineprivacyand to determinewhether themeaningof privacy n the United States has changed-and, if so, to whatdegreeand withwhatconsequence.

DISCOVERINGPRIVACY FROMTHE STANDPOINTOF ITS INVASION:A TYPOLOGYThough I have no particularaffinityfor typologies, there is a gen-uine need for basicorganizationandclarificationwithinprivacyresearch.It proves nearly impossibleto capturethe meaningof privacy,a movingtarget,from an unsituatedexternal ocale.If privacy s to be understood, tmust be examined from the inside,that is, fromthe standpointof the ex-perienceof its invasion.2While a personmaynot be able to defineprivacyprecisely,whenpressed,one does becomecognizantof privacywhen it is vi-olated.I reason that the delineationof privacy'sboundaries,as a firststep,renderspossiblethe analysisof thatwhich ies withinthem.Myintent in creating he typology s to account or allpossiblewaysinwhichone'sprivacy an be invadedandto identifydistinctive haracteristicsassociatedwith each type of invasion.Categorizingnvasions, n thisway,providesa moremeaningful ontext for eachincident,as the typeindicateshow a party'sprivacyhas beenviolated and hints at the extent to whichoneis awareof and has assentedto the invasion.

21usethe term"experience"ooselyhere.Byexperience donotimply hatthepresentusesofthe typology's categories will represent a full phenomenological account of one's privacy be-inginvaded, hough t ispotentially menable o suchuses. Thetypology implyencompassesthe mostbasiccategoriesn whichsuchexperiences it.


7/28/2019 4540882

9/25

76 KasperTableI. Typologyof Privacy nvasions

Extraction(activity: Observation activity: Intrusion activity:taking) watching) entering)A deliberate ffortmadeto Activeongoing An unwelcomepresenceorobtainsomething roma surveillance f a interferencen the life ofpersonorpersons personorpersons a personorpersonsStockpiling Physical SensoryThecollection, torage, Theobservation f a Intrusionsnto one'sexchange,or use of physical ntityand immediatephysicalinformation hat s itsmovementsand surroundingsf whichbenign n itself actions one is conscious i.e.,cansee, hear,smell,taste,etc.)Consequences repotential Intrusions re uninvitedand unwelcome.Invadee s unaware Invadee s unaware Invadee s awareAppropriation/disclosure Communication BodilyThetakingand/or Theinterception Intrusions ponor intodisclosingof one's and/or urveillance one'sbody,not for thepersonal nformation, of communication primary urposeofidentity, mage,or viaanyform gatheringnformationlikeness owarda specificend and withoutconsentConsequences re Intrusions reuninvitedrelativelymmediate and unwelcome.Invadee s aware Invadee s unaware Invadee s awareInner-state Behavioral AutonomyEffortsmade to determine Surveillance f any Intrusionshatarea specificaspectof one's behaviororactivity nonphysical ndpsychological, that does not unassociatedwith aintellectual,physical, r directlynvolve specific enseemotional tate of being observingathat s unknowable rom physical ntityor itswithout communicationFor thepurposeof making A continuousracking Experienced san evaluativeudgment; of a particular interruptionsnan outcomedependson activity psychological/emotionalit comfort, tability,well-being, afety,orfreedom. nterferenceswithrightsand/or ife ingeneralInvadee s aware Invadee s unaware Invadee s aware

I first dentifythreeprimary ypesof invasion:extraction, bservation,and intrusion see Table I). They are distinguishedprimarilyby the prin-cipal activityby whichprivacy s invaded.Withineach primarycategoryare three subcategories hat further differentiate ypes by characteristicssuch as the motivation or the invasion,the methodby whichit is carried


7/28/2019 4540882

10/25

TheEvolution orDevolution)of Privacy 77out, the natureof the consequences,and the invadee'sawarenessof theinvasion.Issues of transparency nd assent in privacy nvasionareimportant oconsider,astheydetermine he degreeto whichpeopleareable to objecttoor avoid suchinvasions and the extent to whichinvadingpartiesare ableto carrythem out. Assent, however, is especiallydifficultto determine.Convenience-store ustomers, or example,are probablyaware,on somelevel, that a camerarecords hem.Althoughtheydidnot explicitlyconsentto its use, they willinglypatronize he establishment,herebygivingwhat iscommonlyknownas "impliedconsent."One often "assents" o perceivedinvasionsof privacyonlybecause there is no viablealternative. n order toobtain a librarycard,for instance,a patronmust disclose a social securitynumberandotherpersonal nformation.Conditionsof assentvary widely;consequently do not includeassent as a characteristic f the types,but itmaybe fruitfully aken into accountwhenlookingat particularnvasions.Examiningprivacy romthe vantage point of the invadeereveals thefollowing undamentaldefinitionof privacy:privacy s theprotectivebufferwithinwhichpeoplecan avoidanotherparty's akingsomething romthem,keepingwatchover them,or entering nto theirlives in a waythat is bothunwelcomeandundesirable.The typologyI presentportraysdealtypesofprivacy nvasions.So whileinvasionsof a certainkindwill typicallydisplaythe associatedcharacteristics,heymaynot alwaysdo so perfectly.

ExtractionThe primaryactivity nvolved in extraction s taking.It involvesa de-liberateeffort to obtainsomething rom anindividualor group.Extractiontypically akesplace in discrete nstances.There are three types of extrac-tion invasions: stockpiling, appropriation/disclosure, and inner-state.Stockpilingncludesthe processesof collection,exchange,storage,oruse of information.Theinformation enerallyconsistsof personaldata andis, on its own, benign;the dangersstockpilingposes for invadees are typi-cally potential.At times,people willinglyoffer information-as when ap-plyingfor a creditcard-but theyremain argelyunawareanduninformedof whathappens o the information fter t has beencollected.Even thepri-vacynoticesnow mandated ndicateonlywhat a companyor organizationcould do withthe information.Examplesof stockpilingssuesinclude cen-sus datacollection,national dentification ards,andcorporate nformation-sharingpractices.3

3The examples, provided for clarification, come from actual events deemed "invasions ofprivacy" in U.S. newspaper stories.


7/28/2019 4540882

11/25

78 KasperAppropriation/disclosurenvolvesthe takingand/ordisclosingof one'spersonal information, dentity, image, or likeness-usually for a specificpurpose.As opposedto stockpiling, he information aken is generallynot

benign;rather, t tends to be somehowdamaging o one or to one's rep-utation.The consequencesof this act are more immediate and are likelyto be perceived by the invadee as harmful n some way, such as acts oflibel, slander,and defamation hroughwhich one's name and informationaboutone's actionshave been appropriated nd made known.One usuallybecomes aware of the invasionupon disclosure.Video footage recordedand aired withoutpermission,unauthorizedphotographs,and the releaseof one's HIV statusare instancesof thistype.Inner-state nvasionsof privacy nvolve effortsto determinesome as-pect of a personthat is not externallyknowable, ncludingpsychological,emotional, ntellectual,or physicalstatus.This is done in order to makeanevaluativejudgmentof some sort, and an outcome dependson it, so theimmediatestakes arehigher haninstockpiling,and the purposemorespe-cific than in appropriation/disclosure.ne is usuallyaware of this type ofinvasion.Mentalhealth examsforprospectiveor present employees,poly-graphtests,anddrugtests areexamplesof inner-statenvasions.Occasion-ally,however,one remains gnorantof the invasionwhile it is happening.Genetictesting,for example, s sometimesperformedon individualswith-out theirknowledgeor consent.

ObservationObservation,as an invasionof privacy,mainlyconsistsof "watching,"thoughnot necessarilywithone's eyes. I use the termwatching o refer tosurveillancen general.Suchinvasions nvolveactiveandongoingsurveil-lance of a person or persons;hence, they are not discreteinstances,butareongoing.In general, ndividualsareunawareof the observationand donot consent to beingwatched.Insome circumstances eopleknowtheyarebeing observed,or perhapsattemptsto inform them are made, but theyremain argelyunconsciousof the observation.Physicalobservation s the surveillanceof a physical entity (usuallya humanbeing) and its movements and actions. Motivations or this varygreatly.Individualsremainlargelyunawarethat they are being watched.Includedin such invasions are the presenceof surveillancecameras,old-

fashionedvoyeurism,(i.e., the "peepingtom"), and trackingdevices likeRFID (radiofrequency dentification)placedon objects.Communication bservation nvolvesthe interceptionand/or surveil-lanceof communicationn anyform: elephone,mobilephone,e-mail,fax,face-to-faceconversation,etters,and so forth.Wiretapping nd"bugs"are


7/28/2019 4540882

12/25

The Evolution orDevolution)of Privacy 79obvious instances of communication urveillance,but other examplesin-clude the interceptionof e-mails,tape-recording personwithoutconsent,andreadinganother'smail.Behavioralobservation s less easy to identify.Whatdistinguisheshisfrom other invasions is the explicit monitoringof a behavior as opposedto the surveillanceof a specific physicalentity or communicativeactivity.Forexample,somemarketing ompanies, ather hansimplygatheringdataabout individuals,employ methods that trackconsumers'buyinghabits.Computercompanieshave been known to offer free equipmentand soft-ware to schools in exchangefor allowingthem to trackthe behaviors ofstudent users. Anotherexampleis the "knowyourcustomer" aw that re-quiresbanks to monitorthe activitiesof their customersand to be on thelookout for "suspicious" ehavior.

IntrusionIntrusion nvasionsare markedby the activityof "entering."This cantakeplaceinmanywaysbutgenerally nvolvestheentryof apresenceor in-terference hat isboth uninvitedandunwelcomedbythe invadee.Instancesof intrusionaretypicallydiscrete,andthe invadee s usuallyawareof them.Sensoryintrusionsare incursions nto one's immediatephysicalsur-roundingsof whichone is consciousviasight,sound, smell,touch,or taste.One is awareof them but does not willinglyassent to them.They typicallydo not present danger,but are seen as annoyingor disturbingn someway.Suchpresencesare considered nvasionsof one'sprivatespatialandsensoryrealm.Examplesof sensoryintrusions ncludejunk mail, telephone callsfrom telemarketers, treet lights shiningin windows at night, loud musicblaringnearby,and the like.Bodily intrusionsareperceivedassaultsuponone's physicalpersoninwhich the primaryoffense is the "entry."Theirpurposeis not to producedata or gatherinformation.These include both dangerousand relativelyharmless ncursions.Bodily intrusionsare uninvited and unwelcome,butthe invadee is aware that they are taking place. Such intrusions ncludeevents as benign as being bumpedinto on a crowdedsubway,or as seri-ous as sexual or physicalassault.Stripsearchesand unauthorizedmedicaltreatmentsare alsoexamplesof bodilyintrusions.Intrusions nto one's autonomyinvolve instances that interfere with

one's sense of comfort,stability, afety,orrights.Theyinterrupt ne's senseof well-beingand are not associatedwithanyparticularenseordirectphys-ical contact. Examples of autonomy intrusions include sodomy laws, lockersearches in high schools, racial profiling practices, and police roadblocks.In a sense, all invasions of privacy, because unwanted, could be considered


7/28/2019 4540882

13/25

80 Kasperassaultson one's sense of autonomyandself-governance.Withinthe con-text of this typology,however,autonomy nvasions have a more specificmeaningand include ntrusions nto one's life (not directlyvia the body orsenses) andperceivedrights,and are distinguishedrom invasionsvia tak-ing orwatching.

IDENTIFYINGCHANGEIN PRIVACY'SMEANINGConcernaboutprivacy s nothingnew. It seemsto swell anderupteachtime a new meansof perceived nvasion s introduced.Theuse of photogra-phy by the presswas an initial nspiration or Brandeis'scall to re-evaluatethe idea of a constitutionalrightto privacy.The introductionof the tele-phonebrought imilar earsandwasdescribed n AmbroseBierce'sDevil'sDictionaryas "an nventionof the devilwhichabrogates ome of the advan-tagesof makinga disagreeablepersonkeephis distance."The adventof thecomputercatalyzeda privacyprotectionmovementbeginning n the late1960s,and inJulyof 1970a cleverly llustratedNewsweekcoverdemanded,"IsPrivacyDead?"Ideas aboutprivacyevolve associetychanges.Inrecentyears,however, he understanding f privacyhas been transformed eyondmereadjustmentso a few novel inventions.Computers,now a common fixture in Americanlife, have recentlygrown rapidly n capacity, peed,andnetworkingandinformation-sharingcapabilities.Daily life has been transformed n myriadways-some good,manywouldargue,and some not so good.The "waron terror"haschangedthe situation a bit, intensifyingthe debate and raisingthe stakes, but ithas only accelerated andjustified)a processalready n motion.Althoughmany people expressmore willingnessto surrenderprivacy n the effortto combatterrorism, here are limits,which became somewhatapparent

in the aftermathof September11, 2001.Sixty-eightpercentof Americanssupporteda nationalID system mmediatelyafter the terroristattacks,ac-cordingto a HarrisPoll. By November2001,favor decreasedto 44%,ac-cording o a studyfor the Washington ost.The GartnerGroupfoundthatin March2002only 26% of Americanssupporteda national ID. Further-more, a National Science Foundationpoll between November 2001 andJanuary2002 found that 92%of respondentsopposed government nves-tigation of nonviolentprotestors,82% reportedthat they opposed gov-ernmentuse of racialprofiling,and 77%opposedwarrantless earchesofsuspected errorists.4Thepoll resultsare available o the public,mosteasily,on the polling organization'sweb-sites.Fora comprehensiveompilation f the findings f publicopinionpollson privacy, eeEPIC's ElectronicPrivacy nformationCenter)websiteatwww.epic.org/privacy/survey.


7/28/2019 4540882

14/25

TheEvolutionorDevolution)fPrivacy 81PublicOpinionon Privacy

Despite the complexities urroundinghe issue of privacy,a few thingsare clear.Many Americansare expressingthe desire for greaterprivacyprotection,and increasingdistrust n the governmentand corporations orespectandprotectprivacy, n a February2003 HarrisPoll, 79% of adultspolled reported hat it is "extremelymportant"o be in controlof who canget personal nformation;t is "extremely mportant"o 73%of respondentsto havenobody watchingor listening o them withoutpermission; nd 62%reported hat t is "extremelymportant"o not be disturbed t home. In thesamepoll 61% of respondentsagreedthat "consumers avelost all controlover how personalinformation s collected and used by companies."Re-acting o perceived nvasionsof privacy,ndividuals egularlydefend them-selves,withholdingpersonal nformationor providing alse information.Astudy performedby the AmericanSocietyof NewspaperEditors in April2001found that 70% of respondentshad refusedto give information o acompanybecauseit was too personal.A February2002 HarrisPoll showsthat 83%of respondentshadrequested hat a companyremove their nameand address rommailing ists.The "Do Not Call"Registry,officially aunched n July2003,was ea-gerly anticipatedby millions.Duringthe firstday, there were 158 phonenumbers igned up everysecond,according o the FederalTrade Commis-sion. The FTC expected that up to 60 millionphone numbers would beaddedduringthe firstyear (Ho, 2003).The registry,which took effect inOctober2003,contained56.3 millionphone numbersby January29, 2004,justfourmonths ater("FTC",2004). Peopleareconcerned.

Privacy n the NewsPolls give some indicationof how Americansfeel aboutprivacyas itrelates to specific ssues,but they fail to explain why concernis mountingor how people actuallyconceive of privacy.So while the results of pollsare telling, they are not the end of the story. I want to find out whetherprivacymeanssomethingdifferent han it used to. If so, what haschangedandwhy?To do this,I examinediscussionsof privacydirected o thepublicin the most widely availablemedium:newspapers.Specifically, analyze

newspapercoverageof privacy nvasions.While television has become an importantnews source for manyAmericans,a significantportionof people continue to get their news fromnewspapers. Eight out of ten adults (78.6%) read newspapers over thecourse of the week. More than half of all adults (53.4%) in the 50 top U.S.


7/28/2019 4540882

15/25

82 Kaspermarketsread a daily newspaper,andnearlytwo-thirds 62%) readone onSundays,according o the CompetitiveMedia Indexstudy by the Newspa-perAssociationof America n 2004(Thanks o the Readership,2004).Moreover,newspapersarerelativelyrepresentative f the largernewsmedia. There is a highcorrelationbetween television andnewspapernews,as the agendaof the former s largelydrivenbythe latter(Jordan,1993:199;McCombset al., 1991:44;Schudson,2003:7). Consequently,newspapersinfluence more than just their readers.Despite this overlap of content,newspaperscover a greaterdiversityof topics than does time-constrainedbroadcast news. Television news tends to focus on fewer and differenttypesof stories,often the moresensationalones (IyengarandKinder,1987;Schudson,2003). Certainevents, then (privacyinvasions,for instance),seeminglyless significant han others, are more likely to be included innewspapers han in television news. For this reason,newspapers end tocover an issue over longer periodsof time than televisionnews,reportingon intermittentdevelopments.Newspapers, herefore,have greatercumu-lative effects andproducemore salient issues in the public'sview (Jordan,1993;McCombsetal., 1991).Newspaperanalysis hereforeserves as a ten-tative firststep in discoveringhow privacy s understood n contemporaryU.S. society,or at leasthow it is discussed n thisbroadlydisseminated ormof publicdiscourse.

MEASURING CHANGE IN THE MEANINGOF "INVASION OF PRIVACY"Using LexisNexis,TM5locatedallnewspaperarticles n the databasethat referred o an "invasionof privacy"n the headlineor leadparagraphand analyzedeach of those "events."The originaldata consisted of more

than3,700newsstoriespublishedbetween1980and2003(inmembernews-papers).Employing hetypology,I then classified hese invasions ntotypesandsubtypes,whichenabled me to trackthe frequencywithwhich certaintypes andsubtypesappeared n proportion o all mentions of "invasionofprivacy"n newspapers.This allowedme to detect variance nthe natureofnewspaperdiscussionsof privacy nvasion.I alsonote, whenpossible,whois portrayedas the "invader" nd who as the "invadee."The total numberof newspaperscontributing o the databasehas in-creasedannually ince its inception: t includedonly 8 newspapersn 1980(it did not exceed 10 until 1985),36 in 1990,184 in 2001, and as manyas5Lexis NexisTMis an extensive database that contains business, legal, medical, and referenceinformation, in addition to the contents of international and U.S. newspapers.


7/28/2019 4540882

16/25

The Evolution orDevolution)of Privacy 83351in 2003.Because the numberof participating ewspaperspriorto 1990is too small to be consideredmeaningful,I discussonly the data that ap-pearedbetween1990 and 2003.This timeperiod,thoughbrief, s especiallysignificantbecause it includesthe introductionof several new technolo-gies that contributed o changesin the phenomenonof privacy: he inter-net, expansivecomputerdatabases,wirelesscommunication,and satellitetechnologies.My primarygoal is to find out whetherthe meaningof "invasionofprivacy,"and thusprivacy tself,has changed n recentyears.The data donot indicatenor do I claimto measure ncreasesor decreases nactual nva-sionsof privacy.The datarepresentchanges n the idea of what constitutesan invasionof privacy,as presented n the Americannews media.Conse-quently,all of the invasions of privacydiscussed n the articles need nothaveactuallyoccurred.A proposedbill,for instance,mightbe discussedasa potential nvasionof privacy.Similarly, n articlemay identifyanticipatedprivacy nvasionsas likelyto occur with the introductionof new computertechnology.I read andanalyzedeach articleandcategorized he invasiondiscussedwithin t, payingcarefulattentionto the specificevent deemedan invasionof privacy n the context of each article. There are manysituationsthat,at firstglance, appearto be one type of invasionbut upon further nspec-tionturnout to be somethingelse.Drug testing, orexample,haslongbeenconsideredan invasionof privacyby civil rightsadvocates,and the typol-ogy classifies t asan inner-state xtraction.But an articleaboutdrug estingcannotnecessarilybe classifiedas such. Forinstance,LieutenantElizabethSusanUnger,a Navalofficer,made news for refusing o be watchedwhileproducinga urinespecimen,citingthat "themandatoryobservation s de-meaningand an invasionof privacy" The Lieutenant'sRight, 1988). Inthis case, the drug testing itself is not consideredas the invasion of pri-vacy;rather, hewatchingof the urinesamplesubmissions framedassuch,and s thereforeaphysicalobservation.Similar xamplesabound,andI wascareful o document he instancethat wasactuallybeingcalledan invasionof privacy.To beginwith,I calculateaverageratesof the numberof invasion ofprivacyarticlesper newspapereach year (see Table II). These rates re-veal whetherthe frequencyof discussionsof invasionshas increasedor de-creased,whilecontrolling or the fluctuatingnumberof newspapersn thedatabase.Ratespeakin the early1990s andthen decline.The main reasonfor the overall declineis most likelythe significantncreaseof newspaperscontributing o the database,manyof whichare devoted to special topicsor ethnic groups and so are not equally likely to cover all of the topics thatgeneral newspapers do. The decline between 2001 and 2003 is probably due


7/28/2019 4540882

17/25

84 KasperTableII. Rateof Invasionof PrivacyArticlesPerNewspaper

Numberof Numberof Rate(averagearticlesYear I.P.articles newspapers pernewspaper)1990 104 36 2.891991 124 46 2.701992 170 56 3.041993 196 64 3.061994 193 96 2.011995 201 116 1.731996 207 145 1.431997 274 163 1.681998 355 175 2.031999 330 181 1.822000 369 184 2.012001 248 201 1.232002 281 264 1.062003 278 351 .79Note."I.P." tands orinvasionof privacy.

to the coverageof the September11, 2001, terroristattacks,the "waronterror,"and the U.S. invasionof Iraq.I then calculate the percentageof articles devoted to each type andsubtypeout of the total number of invasion of privacyarticles. This re-vealsproportional hanges n the typesof incursionsbeingdiscussedwithinall mentions of privacy nvasion.These data are most telling,as they hintat shiftsin the meaningof "invasionof privacy"and,consequently, n themeaningof the termprivacy tself.

FINDINGSThe data, organized accordingto the typology, reveal some major

trends ndiscussions f events framedas invasionsof privacynnewspapers:(1) a marked ncrease n the proportionof articles ocusingon invasionsofprivacy hatareongoingandof whichthe invadee s unaware; 2) a markeddecrease in the proportionof articlesdiscussingprivacy nvasions hat arediscrete,of whichthe invadee s aware,andforwhichthe consequencesareimmediate;and (3) the emergenceof corporationsand the governmentasthe mostfrequentlydiscussed nvadersof privacy.I examinethe proportionsof eachtypeandsubtyperepresentedn thetotalpopulationof articlesconcerning he invasionof privacy. n doingso,my aim is to accomplish hree things.First,I intendto avoid some of theproblemsassociatedwithnewspaper overageandcompetingevents. Look-ing at the proportionsof the types that occurwithinthis population(in-steadof allnewspaperarticles),minimizes he effects of event bias.Second,


7/28/2019 4540882

18/25

The Evolution (or Devolution) of Privacy 8580%70%60%50%40%

F 30% -020%

"OF

"0% - -0%1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year- Extraction - - - Observation - - - - - Intrusion

Fig. 1. Primary types, relative to all invasion of privacy articles.

this approach allows comparison of the frequencies with which the varioustypes of privacy invasion are discussed. Finally, by focusing only on whathave already been deemed "invasions of privacy," I am better able to assesschanges in the meaning of the term as used in U.S. newspapers.Proportions of the primary types, in relation to all invasion of privacyarticles, remain relatively stable over the 14-year period (see Fig. 1). Ex-traction types fluctuate a bit, peaking at 75% in 1992, but they remain atan average of 62%. Observations comprise 17% of privacy invasion cov-erage in 1990 and maintain a low average of 13% through 2000. Climbingsteadily since 1996, however, their average increases to 27% between 2001and 2003. Intrusions peak during 1994 (30%) and 1995 (26%), but remainat an average of 21%.While there appears to be no noteworthy change in the frequencies

with which the three primary types appear in the news between 1990 and2003, it is within the subtypes that most of the action takes place, and someinteresting trends emerge. Significant changes occurred in the subtypes be-tween 1990 and 2003 (mean change = 7.8%). A two-tailed t-test reveals thatthe change in the subtypes between 1990 and 2003 reflects actual change inthe entire population of newspapers, and is not attributable to samplingerror alone (p

4540882

Documents

Transcript of 4540882