Everyone should read academic papers regardless of scholarship. But at the same time, I don’t pretend not to be lazy, so let me summarize (no gee-pee-tee was used in this process):

comment 1/2

Section I. Introduction

skip :3

Section II. The “Nothing to Hide” argument

We expand the “nothing to hide” argument to a more compelling, defensible thesis.

“The NSA surveillance, data mining, or other government information- gathering programs will result in the disclosure of particular pieces of information to a few government officials, or perhaps only to government computers. This very limited disclosure of the particular information involved is not likely to be threatening to the privacy of law-abiding citizens. Only those who are engaged in illegal activities have a reason to hide this information. Although there may be some cases in which the information might be sensitive or embarrassing to law-abiding citizens, the limited disclosure lessens the threat to privacy. Moreover, the security interest in detecting, investigating, and preventing terrorist attacks is very high and outweighs whatever minimal or moderate privacy interests law-abiding citizens may have in these particular pieces of information.” (p. 753, or pdf page 9)

Section III. Conceptualizing Privacy

A. A Pluralistic Conception of Privacy (aka “what’s the definition”)

Privacy definitions suck.

• “privacy’s content covers intimate information, access, and decisions”? But your Social Security and religion are private but not intimate (p. 755, or pdf page 11).
• ye olde Harvard Law Review “right to be let alone”? But shoving someone and not leaving them alone isn’t a privacy violation (p. 755, or pdf page 11)
• The 1984 Orwellian thingy of social control by surveillance? But the boring data like the history of your beverage use and marital status isn’t very controlly (p. 756, or pdf page 12)

Since it isn’t only about inhibition or chilling (scaring people into not doing stuff) and more about a helpless powerless relationship with the important-life-decision institutions, Kafka’s The Trial is more accurate: a bureaucracy “with inscrutable purposes… uses people’s information to make important decisions about them, yet denies people the ability to participate in how their information is used” (p. 756-757, or pdf page 12-13).

To make privacy distinct and its issues more concrete – it is kinda a blobby subject (p. 759 or pdf page 15) – we define it as a blurry family relationship of kinda similar stuff (i.e. if it’s similar to the below, it’s in the privacy umbrella):

• Information Collection
  • Surveillance
  • Interrogation
  • Main problem: “an activity by a person, business, or government entity creates harm by disrupting valuable activities of others” whether physical, emotional, chilling socially beneficial behavior like free speech, or power imbalances like executive branch power.
• Information Processing
  • Aggregation
  • Identification
  • Insecurity: Information might be abused. You can think of ways ;)
  • Secondary Use
  • Exclusion: People have no access nor say in how their data is used
• Information Dissemination
  • Breach of Confidentiality
  • Disclosure
  • Exposure
  • Increased Accessibility
  • Blackmail
  • Appropriation
  • Distortion
  • Main problem: How info can transfer or be threatened to transfer
• Invasion
  • Intrusion
  • Decisional Interference
  • Main problem: Your decisions are regulated

(p. 758-759, or pdf page 14-15)

((aside by me: Sheesh lol))