DOCSLIB.ORG

How Internet Users' Privacy Concerns Have Evolved Since 2002

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
How Internet Users' Privacy Concerns Have Evolved Since 2002 Internet Privacy How Internet Users’ Privacy Concerns Have Evolved since 2002 A 2008 survey revealed that US Internet users’ top three privacy concerns haven’t changed since 2002, but privacy-related events might have influenced their level of concern within certain categories. The authors describe their results as well as the differences in privacy concerns between US and international respondents. nderstanding and protecting personal privacy pliance date occurred after our in information systems is becoming increas- first survey but before the second; ingly critical with widespread use of net- consequently, people may be more aware of privacy Annie i. worked systems and the Internet. In 2002, we notices today than in 2002 for a variety of reasons. For Antón, Ucreated and validated a survey instrument to establish a example, consider that after the 2003 HIPAA com- JuliA B. eArp, baseline of Internet users’ privacy concerns.1 We devel- pliance date, anyone who visited a healthcare facility And JessicA d. oped this instrument by using a subset of the Antón and started receiving privacy notices and was required to Young Earp privacy goal taxonomy2 to express dimensions of sign a statement indicating that they had received or North privacy concerns such as access/participation, informa- read that organization’s privacy notice. Carolina State tion collection, information storage, information trans- The economic and legal landscape has also changed University fer, notice/awareness, and personalization. over the six years between our first and second sur- The 2002 survey revealed that Internet users were veys. Consider the US Census Bureau data that shows primarily concerned about information transfer, an increase in US e-commerce retail sales from $10.2 notice/awareness, and information storage. We also billion during the second quarter of 2002 to $31.6 bil- learned that users’ privacy concerns did not align with lion during the third quarter of 2008 (www.census. online privacy policies because the latter primarily gov/mrts/www/ecomm.html). Clearly, this increase emphasized data integrity/security, information col- in online shopping suggests that Internet users might lection, and user choice/consent. Thus, we found be more comfortable sharing their sensitive financial no overlap between the top three privacy concerns information (such as credit-card numbers) with Web among Internet users and the items most emphasized sites than they were six years ago. in Internet privacy policies. In 2008, we repeated our Professional and social networking sites that let survey to determine whether and how users’ privacy individuals connect with coworkers, friends, fam- interests have evolved in the six intervening years. ily, classmates, and others online have seen a similar jump in usage since 2002. LinkedIn, a professional Then and Now networking site founded in May 2003, had 33 mil- Many privacy-related events have occurred since lion users by October 2008 (http://press.linkedin. 2002, prompting us to examine whether individuals’ com/history). MySpace, founded in late 2003, had privacy concerns have evolved. We quickly learned 110 million active users by January 2008 (www.web that this also entailed considering how the environ- -strategist.com/blog/2008/01/09/social-network ment has evolved as well. For example, the US Con- -stats-facebook-myspace-reunion-jan-2008/), and gress enacted the Health Insurance Portability and Facebook, launched in February 2004, had more Accountability Act (HIPAA) in 1996 but did not than 100 million active users by August 2008 (www. require compliance until 2003. Therefore, the com- facebook.com/press/info.php?timeline). These num- JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2010 ■ 1540-7993/10/$26.00 © 2010 IEEE ■ COPUBLISHED BY THE IEEE COMPUTER AND RELIABILITY SOCIETIES 21 Internet Privacy Reported data loss events Breach notication laws effective 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Figure 1. Breach notification laws and reported data loss events. Blue diamonds represent individual data loss events and red squares represent the effective date for the different state-based data breach notification laws. The gray vertical bars mark the times during which we conducted our surveys in 2002 and 2008. We generated this figure from http://datalossdb.org using data accessed on 20 April 2009. bers indicate that people increasingly feel comfortable using data from the Open Security Foundation’s Data- putting varied information about themselves online. LossDB (http://datalossdb.org), which appears to be Individuals also appear more willing to speak the most comprehensive list of data loss events avail- out about what they perceive as invasions of privacy able (www.privacyrights.org/ar/ChronDataBreaches. when engaging in online activities. For example, in htm). The database had only 16 reported events before February 2009, Facebook changed its Terms of Ser- 2002, with no events reported during the course of vice regarding its information practices, resulting in our first survey. In contrast, at the start of the second a public outcry from its members that manifested in survey, the database contained 1,370 reported events, the creation of Facebook user groups protesting the and 47 additional events occurred during its course. change. In response to this outcry, Facebook reverted In response to concerns about the need to notify back to its previous terms while crafting a new version individuals about compromises of their sensitive in- that reduced the problematic verbiage (http://blog. formation, states are passing data breach notification facebook.com/blog.php?post=54746167130). laws. In fact, as of this writing, Alabama, Kentucky, Along with the increase in online shopping and Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, and South Da- professional/social networking, the number of con- kota are the only US states without such laws, which sumer complaints about information practices has also vary by state but require companies to notify consum- risen. The US Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) ers when breaches involve their personal information. Consumer Sentinel Network has an online database California was the first state to have a data breach no- of consumer complaints addressing, for example, tification law, which became effective on 1 July 2003; fraud and identity theft (www.ftc.gov/sentinel). To the next wave of notification laws came two years better understand complaint trends, we examined the later, in 2005. Figure 1 chronologically plots reported Consumer Sentinel Network Data Book, a summary data loss events as well as the effective dates for state- of this consumer complaint database that contains based notification laws. We verified the laws’ effec- statistics about complaints, descriptions of complaint tive dates across at least two sources and combined categories, and sample complaints, as well as descrip- them with data loss event dates from the previously tions of Consumer Sentinel Network member orga- mentioned DataLossDB. Blue diamonds represent in- nizations and how much information each contributes dividual data loss events, and red squares represent the to the database.3 The total number of annual com- effective dates for different state-based data breach no- plaints has continually increased each year, more than tification laws. Gray vertical bars mark the times dur- doubling since 2002, suggesting that people might be ing which we conducted our surveys. Prior to the data more aware or concerned about their sensitive infor- breach notification laws, very few data breaches were mation as it pertains to identity theft and fraud. required by law to be publicly reported. It is plausible Reports of lost laptops or sensitive information that these new laws have led to the increase in publicly leaks in the press are becoming more frequent. Con- documented data breach incidents. sider the data loss events chronicled by the Privacy In addition to data breach laws, most states now Rights Clearinghouse’s A Chronology of Data Breaches have security freeze laws to protect consumers from 22 IEEE SECURITY & PRIVACY Internet Privacy identity theft. These laws allow consumers to put a tions.) We advertised the survey using a wide variety hold on their credit files to avoid anyone else from of mechanisms, including attaching fliers to bulletin being able to fraudulently open new accounts with boards around campus, posting announcements on stolen information. The first security freeze law went academic Web sites and professional/social network- into effect in California in 2003. Today, Washington, ing sites, and sending emails to our own personal and DC, and 47 states (excluding Alabama, Michigan, and family networks. Missouri) have followed suit. These laws vary from The 2008 survey resulted in a much larger sample state to state—for example, in Arkansas, Kansas, Mis- size, so we cannot compare two identical samples. sissippi, and South Dakota, the freeze applies only to However, the 2008 survey’s demographics are similar identity theft victims who file a police report, whereas to those of the 2002 survey—for example, most re- the other states allow any consumer to place a security spondents were male in both surveys, and the largest freeze on his or her own account anyway. In 2007, participant group was the 22-to-28 age group. Most the US credit bureaus began granting all consumers of the 2008 survey’s US respondents reported having the ability to set security freezes on their accounts; if a more than a college degree or some graduate school-
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Privacy on the Internet: the Vole Ving Legal Landscape Debra A
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Santa Clara University School of Law Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal Volume 16 | Issue 2 Article 10 January 2000 Privacy on the Internet: The volE ving Legal Landscape Debra A. Valentine Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Debra A. Valentine, Privacy on the Internet: The Evolving Legal Landscape , 16 Santa Clara High Tech. L.J. 401 (2000). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj/vol16/iss2/10 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRIVACY ON THE INTERNET: THE EVOLVING LEGAL LANDSCAPE Prepared Remarks of Debra A. Valentinet TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ................................................................................ 401 II. Privacy on the Internet-The Evolving Legal Landscape ............. 403 A. Federal Trade Commission Act and Informational Privacy ........... 404 B. Other Federal Statutes and Informational Privacy ......................... 408 C. Federal Intemet-Law ................................................................... 410 III. Current Federal Policy on Internet Privacy .................................. 412 IV. The U.S. Approach
    [Show full text]
  • Personality Rights in Australia1
    SWIMMERS, SURFERS, AND SUE SMITH PERSONALITY RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA1 Therese Catanzariti2 It is somewhat of a misnomer to talk about personality rights in Australia. First, personality rights are not “rights” in the sense of positive rights, a right to do something, or in the sense of proprietary rights, property that can be assigned or mortgaged. Second, personality rights are largely a US law concept, derived from US state law relating to the “right of publicity”. However, it is common commercial practice that Australian performers, actors and sportstars enter endorsement or sponsorship agreements.3 In addition, the Australian Media and Entertainment Arts Alliance, the Australian actors union, insists that the film and television industrial agreements and awards don’t cover merchandising and insist film and television producers enter individual agreements if they want to use an actor’s image in merchandising.4 This paper considers Australian law5 relating to defamation, passing off, and section 52 of the Trade Practices Act,6 draws parallels with US law relating to the right of publicity, and considers whether there is a developing Australian jurisprudence of “personality rights”. Protecting Personality Acknowledging and protecting personality rights protects privacy. But protecting privacy is not the focus and is an unintended incidental. Protecting personality rights protects investment, and has more in common with unfair competition than privacy. Acknowledging and protecting personality rights protects investment in creating and maintaining a carefully manicured public image, an investment of time labour, skill and cash. This includes spin doctors and personal trainers and make-up artists and plastic surgeons and making sure some stories never get into the press.
    [Show full text]
  • E Dawn of Robot Surveillance AI, Video Analytics, and Privacy
    e Dawn of Robot Surveillance AI, Video Analytics, and Privacy June 2019 e Dawn of Robot Surveillance AI, Video Analytics, and Privacy By Jay Stanley © 2019 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION Cover: Sources images, shutterstock.com “The robots are here. The robots control your warnings. They analyze and notify, following instructions you have set.” — Promotional web site for “Video Surveillance as a Service”1 “The overwhelming majority of images are now made by machines for other machines” 2 — Trevor Paglen 1 http://www.vsaas.com/. 2 https://thenewinquiry.com/invisible-images-your-pictures-are-looking-at-you/. 1 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 3 II. WHAT IS AI VIDEO ANALYTICS .......................................................................... 5 The rise of deep learning ........................................................................................... 6 Overcoming challenges with new sources of data .................................................. 8 III. CURRENT DEPLOYMENTS ................................................................................ 9 Government deployments ......................................................................................... 9 Commercial deployments ........................................................................................ 10 Analytics in the cloud .............................................................................................. 11 IV. HOW COMPUTERS WILL
    [Show full text]
  • Privacy and Publicity: the Two Facets of Personality Rights
    Privacy and publicity Privacy and publicity: the two facets of personality rights hyperbole. In this context, personality In this age of endorsements and rights encompass the “right of privacy”, tabloid gossip, famous people which prohibits undue interference in need to protect their rights and a person’s private life. In addition to coverage in the media, reputations. With a growing number images of celebrities adorn anything from of reported personality rights cases, t-shirts, watches and bags to coffee mugs. India must move to develop its This is because once a person becomes legal framework governing the famous, the goods and services that he or commercial exploitation of celebrity she chooses to endorse are perceived to reflect his or her own personal values. By Bisman Kaur and Gunjan Chauhan, A loyal fan base is a captive market for Remfry & Sagar such goods, thereby allowing celebrities to cash in on their efforts in building up Introduction a popular persona. Intellectual property in India is no longer Unfortunately, a large fan base is a niche field of law. Stories detailing also seen by unscrupulous people as an trademark infringement and discussing opportunity to bring out products or the grant of geographical indications services that imply endorsement by an routinely make their way into the daily individual, when in fact there is no such news headlines. From conventional association. In such cases the individual’s categories of protection such as patents, “right of publicity” is called into play. trademarks, designs and copyright, IP laws The right of publicity extends to every have been developed, often by judicial individual, not just those who are famous, innovation, to encompass new roles and but as a practical matter its application areas of protection.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Frontiers of Personality Rights and the Problem of Commodification: European and Comparative Perspectives
    The New Frontiers of Personality Rights and the Problem of Commodification: European and Comparative Perspectives Giorgio Resta* I. TORT LAW AND THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH TO PERSONALITY RIGHTS ........................................................................ 33 II. NEW DIMENSIONS OF PERSONALITY PROTECTION IN PRIVATE LAW .................................................................................................... 37 A. From ‘Reactive’ to ‘Preventive’ Strategies ........................ 38 B. The Emergence of the Human Body as a Legal Object ................................................................................. 40 C. The Commercialization of Personality ............................... 41 III. WHO OWNS IDENTITY? ...................................................................... 43 IV. THE QUESTIONS AT STAKE ................................................................. 46 V. THE PROTECTION OF PERSONAL AUTONOMY: A MATTER OF PRIVACY OR PROPERTY? .................................................................... 48 A. Incorporeal Attributes and the Dominance of Property Rules .................................................................... 48 B. Body Parts and Liability Rules ........................................... 51 VI. LICENSING IDENTITY? ........................................................................ 54 A. The Human Body and the Gift Paradigm ........................... 54 B. Commercial Exploitation of Personality and the Limits of Freedom of Contract ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Image Is Everything Lowenstein Sandler’S Matthew Savare Gives a Comparative Examination of Publicity Rights in the US and Western Europe
    Publicity rights Image is everything Lowenstein Sandler’s Matthew Savare gives a comparative examination of publicity rights in the US and western Europe Comedian Steven Wright once joked, “It’s a small world, but I the person’s identity has “commercial value” versus only 10 years for wouldn’t want to paint it”. Over the last decade, the proliferation those whose identity does not. of digital technologies has not made the world smaller or easier to • Remedies – the remedies available to plaintiffs also vary from state paint, but it has significantly hastened the globalisation of content. This to state. For example, New York’s statute provides for injunctions, transformation, coupled with the developed world’s insatiable fascination compensatory damages, and discretionary punitive damages. Ohio’s with fame, has spurred the hyper commoditisation of celebrity. statute, which offers the most remedies of any state statute, permits Despite the universality of celebrity, the laws governing the injunctions; a choice of either actual damages, “including any commercial exploitation of one’s name, image, and likeness differ profits derived from and attributable to the unauthorised use of an widely between the US and the nations of western Europe. In light individual’s persona for a commercial purpose” or statutory damages of the increased trafficking in celebrity personas between the two between $2,500 and $10,000; punitive damages; treble damages continents, a brief comparative analysis is warranted. if the defendant has “knowledge of the unauthorised use of the persona”; and attorney’s fees. A primer on US right of publicity law Courts have used primarily three methodologies or some The right of publicity is the “inherent right of every human being to combination thereof to value compensatory damages.
    [Show full text]
  • Privacy Online: a Report to Congress
    PRIVACY ONLINE: A REPORT TO CONGRESS FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION JUNE 1998 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Robert Pitofsky Chairman Mary L. Azcuenaga Commissioner Sheila F. Anthony Commissioner Mozelle W. Thompson Commissioner Orson Swindle Commissioner BUREAU OF CONSUMER PROTECTION Authors Martha K. Landesberg Division of Credit Practices Toby Milgrom Levin Division of Advertising Practices Caroline G. Curtin Division of Advertising Practices Ori Lev Division of Credit Practices Survey Advisors Manoj Hastak Division of Advertising Practices Louis Silversin Bureau of Economics Don M. Blumenthal Litigation and Customer Support Center Information and Technology Management Office George A. Pascoe Litigation and Customer Support Center Information and Technology Management Office TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .......................................................... i I. Introduction ........................................................... 1 II. History and Overview .................................................... 2 A. The Federal Trade Commission’s Approach to Online Privacy ................. 2 B. Consumer Privacy Online ............................................. 2 1. Growth of the Online Market ...................................... 2 2. Privacy Concerns ............................................... 3 C. Children’s Privacy Online ............................................. 4 1. Growth in the Number of Children Online ............................ 4 2. Safety and Privacy Concerns ...................................... 4 III. Fair
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to Privacy and the Future of Mass Surveillance’
    ‘The Right to Privacy and the Future of Mass Surveillance’ ABSTRACT This article considers the feasibility of the adoption by the Council of Europe Member States of a multilateral binding treaty, called the Intelligence Codex (the Codex), aimed at regulating the working methods of state intelligence agencies. The Codex is the result of deep concerns about mass surveillance practices conducted by the United States’ National Security Agency (NSA) and the United Kingdom Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). The article explores the reasons for such a treaty. To that end, it identifies the discriminatory nature of the United States’ and the United Kingdom’s domestic legislation, pursuant to which foreign cyber surveillance programmes are operated, which reinforces the need to broaden the scope of extraterritorial application of the human rights treaties. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the US and UK foreign mass surveillance se practices interferes with the right to privacy of communications and cannot be justified under Article 17 ICCPR and Article 8 ECHR. As mass surveillance seems set to continue unabated, the article supports the calls from the Council of Europe to ban cyber espionage and mass untargeted cyber surveillance. The response to the proposal of a legally binding Intelligence Codexhard law solution to mass surveillance problem from the 47 Council of Europe governments has been so far muted, however a soft law option may be a viable way forward. Key Words: privacy, cyber surveillance, non-discrimination, Intelligence Codex, soft law. Introduction Peacetime espionage is by no means a new phenomenon in international relations.1 It has always been a prevalent method of gathering intelligence from afar, including through electronic means.2 However, foreign cyber surveillance on the scale revealed by Edward Snowden performed by the United States National Security Agency (NSA), the United Kingdom Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) and their Five Eyes partners3 1 Geoffrey B.
    [Show full text]
  • What Data Is Best Kept Private and Why?
    What data is best kept private and why? Hi, My name is Catherine Gicheru. I am an ICFJ Knight Fellow and the Director of the African Women Journalism Project, an initiative that works to support, train and mentor women journalists in Africa in covering underreported communities and issues. Last week Arzu Geybulla took you through what online harassment looks like, how to look after your emotional wellbeing and shared resources for psychosocial support. This week, l will be telling you about online privacy...what is it and why it's important. You will learn what information you should or shouldn't share online and how the information you share online can make you vulnerable to online attacks and targeted by bad actors. We shall also share some practical tips on what you can do to protect your privacy online. This week in addition to the videos there will be additional reading materials. I encourage you all to participate in the discussions that we shall be having throughout the week. Thank you for joining me and I look forward to working with you to better understand Online Privacy. I would like to start this second module by quickly talking about how the internet works so that you can better understand what data you share knowingly or unknowingly, and why some information should be kept private. There’s a lot of technical explanations of how the internet works, but the simplest explanation is this, the Internet is a vast, sprawling collection of networks that connect to each other. In fact, the word “Internet” comes from this concept: interconnected networks.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Before the U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, LIBRARY of CONGRESS
    Before the U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS In the Matter of Section 512 Study Docket No. 2015-7 Additional Comments of Electronic Frontier Foundation February 21, 2017 Submitted by: Corynne McSherry Mitch Stoltz Kerry Maeve Sheehan1 Electronic Frontier Foundation 815 Eddy Street San Francisco, CA 94109 Telephone: (415) 436-9333 [email protected] The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) appreciates the Copyright Office’s efforts to consider the impact of section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. EFF is a member-supported, nonprofit, public interest organization dedicated to ensuring that copyright law advances the progress of science and the arts and enhances freedom of expression. Founded in 1990, EFF represents tens of thousands of dues-paying members, including consumers, hobbyists, computer programmers, entrepreneurs, students, teachers, and researchers, who are united in their desire for a balanced copyright system that provides adequate incentives for creators, facilitates innovation, and ensures broad access to information in the digital age. EFF has been involved, as amicus or party counsel, in numerous court cases interpreting section 512, including Lenz v Universal, Lessig v. Liberation Music, MoveOn v. Viacom, Tuteur v. Wesley Corcoran, Sapient v. Geller, SHARK v. PRCA, Viacom v. YouTube, UMG Recordings v. Veoh, and Columbia Pictures v. Fung. We regularly counsel 1 Kerry Maeve Sheehan is not admitted to practice law. 1 individuals who have been targeted by takedown notices pursuant to the DMCA regarding their rights and options. We have also represented the interests of users and innovators on multiple formal and informal public processes assessing the notice and takedown system, in the United States and abroad.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Market for Digital Privacy a Failure?1
    Is the Market for Digital Privacy a Failure?1 Caleb S. Fuller2 Abstract Why do many digital firms rely on collecting consumer information–a practice that survey evidence shows is widely disliked? Why don’t they, instead, charge a fee that would protect privacy? This paper empirically adjudicates between two competing hypotheses. The first holds that firms pursue this strategy because consumers are ill-informed and thus susceptible to exploitation. The second holds that this strategy reasonably approximates consumer preferences. By means of survey, I test a.) the extent of information asymmetry in digital markets, b.) consumers’ valuation of privacy, and c.) whether government failure contributes to consumer mistrust of information collection. My results indicate that a.) the extent of information asymmetry is minimal, b.) there is significant divergence between “notional” and “real” demand for privacy and c.) that government contributes to consumer distrust of information collection by private firms. Significantly, almost 82% of Google users are unwilling to pay anything for increased digital privacy. JEL-Classification: D23, K29, Z18 Keywords: privacy paradox, digital privacy, survey, market failure 1 I wish to thank Alessandro Acquisti, Peter Leeson, Chris Coyne, Peter Boettke, David Lucas, Noah Gould, and Nicholas Freiling for helpful suggestions. All errors are my own. I am also indebted to the Mercatus Center for providing funding for the survey conducted by Haven Insights LLC. 2 Assistant professor of economics, Grove City College, Email: 1 INTRODUCTION Google’s motto is “Don’t Be Evil.” But the fact that the company surreptitiously collects the information of over one billion individuals annually leads some to question whether the firm’s business model runs afoul of its dictum (Hoofnagle 2009).
    [Show full text]
  • Principles of Internet Privacy
    Maurer School of Law: Indiana University Digital Repository @ Maurer Law Articles by Maurer Faculty Faculty Scholarship 2000 Principles of Internet Privacy Fred H. Cate Indiana University Maurer School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub Part of the Computer Law Commons, and the Law and Society Commons Recommended Citation Cate, Fred H., "Principles of Internet Privacy" (2000). Articles by Maurer Faculty. 243. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/243 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by Maurer Faculty by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Principles of Internet Privacy FRED H. CATE* I. INTRODUCTION Paul Schwartz's InternetPrivacy and the State makes an important and original contribution to the privacy debate that is currently raging by be- ginning the process of framing a new and more useful understanding of what "privacy" is and why and how it should be protected.' The definition developed by Brandeis, Warren,2 and Prosser,3 and effectively codified by Alan Westin in 1967---"the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others"---worked well in a world in which most privacy concerns involved physical intrusions (usually by the government) or public disclosures (usually by the media), which, by their very nature, were comparatively rare and usually discovered.
    [Show full text]