Privacy, Regulation and the Net

A major face-off is brewing between American and European approaches to our so-called Information Society.    European data-protection authorities are seeking to restrict the right of Google and other search engines to disseminate certain sensitive data on “private” citizens.    Suzanne Daley writes in The New York Times (August 10, A1) of a middle-aged Spanish woman who “thought it unfair that a few computer key strokes could unearth an account of her arrest during her college days”.   In such cases, Daley notes, the European Union is contemplating a “right to be forgotten” on the world wide web.

The battle shaping up is more than just a rehearsal of familiar conflicts between American market supremacy and European penchants for regulation.    Everyone can sympathize with the all-but-universal human desire to withhold hurtful, embarrassing, outdated or out-of-context personal data from public access–particularly when the information is no legitimate business of anyone else.   But what principle should decide what personal information should be so designated, and what government agency should be trusted to apply such judgments?

Competing with privacy concerns here are values underlying a vibrant public sphere–a citizenry empowered to pursue both individual well-being and the public good through discriminating information use.   Both these pursuits may sometimes require aggressive uses of personal information that place pressure on someone’s privacy.     In making and maintaining friendships, neighborly relations or business ties, we often feel we need to know more about people than they willingly disclose.    Or in public affairs, imagine a case where community leaders arise to oppose construction of a mosque,  on the stated grounds that such an addition would alter the neighborhood’s residential character.    Shouldn’t there be means for checking the response of those same leaders when construction of a church or a synagogue was proposed?

Some privacy advocates have proposed applying the equivalent of an expiration date to personal data held in record-systems, as for grocery items.     Thus embarrassing postings on social media sites, for example, would simply disappear after a fixed interval.    But any attempt to apply such a principle would require resolution of many intractable questions.   How widely should the principle apply?  To all social media postings–even where harvested and recorded in other record-systems?   To all criminal record information?    Or only to records of “serious” crimes”?    What about crimes against particularly vulnerable parties, like children?  Should public records of tax payments (and delinquencies), marriages and divorces,  and verdicts in civil suits also have fixed lives?   Should such “sunset laws” apply to past sexual, financial or familial peccadilloes of  public office-holders?    To potential office-seekers?    To current or aspiring members of the clergy, the judiciary or the teaching professions?    For the best of reasons, many supporters of democratic institutions will not want to entrust powers of making such decisions to any government agency.

A quite different legal innovation would provide a better protection–shoring up privacy interests without fostering overbearing government power to decide what personal information should held private.      We could create a property right over commercial exploitation of data on one’s self.    With the establishment of such a right, sale or trade of personal information for commercial gain would be illegal without consent from the person concerned.  Ordinary people would thus enjoy protection now accorded only to celebrities–freedom from unauthorized commercialization of their names.

Such a right would have to be carefully circumscribed.    It should never be understood to block sale of personal data for journalistic purposes, for example, or for use in political campaigns or other public forums.   Nor should it ever be possible to sign away one’s own data rights in perpetuity.   But creating a property right over commercialization of everyone’s personal data would severely curtail widespread practices of harvesting and retailing personal information for profit–practices common in credit reporting, mass marketing and insurance industries.    These profit-seeking activities have furnished data for many web-based privacy-eroding disclosures.

But neither a right like this nor any other single legal or policy measure can resolve all the intricate ethical and policy questions posed by the flow of personal data over the Web.    Ultimately these dilemmas require agonizing decisions about what information people should be able to keep to themselves, under what circumstances–decisions that can only be public and political.     Goverments cannot avoid taking a stand, for example, on when results of criminal and civil court proceedings should be posted electronically by the courts themselves.    And governments must be prepared to propose binding, privacy-friendly decisions on how much personal data members of the public should be required to provide in dealing with both public and private institutions.   These are not matters where the logic of the market can answer all the subtle questions that confront us.

James B. Rule of the Center for the Study of Law and Society at the University of California, Berkeley can be reached at: jbrule@berkeley.edu

More articles by:
July 16, 2020
Vijay Prashad
Laos Has Tackled COVID-19, But It Is Drowning in Debt to International Finance
Louisa Willcox
Charlie Russell, Grizzly Whisperer
John McMurtry – Jeffery Klaehn
Money Capital vs Life Capital: the War of Values We Live or Die By
Jesse Jackson
A New Generation of Protest Holds Great Promise for America
Robert Hunziker
The Inertia Bugaboo
Jyoti Saraswati
Seeing the World Through Touch During a Pandemic
Sam Bahour
Time’s Up Israel: Get Your Knee Off Palestine’s neck
Nick Licata
How Protester Occupations Can Succeed
Dean Baker
It’s Going to be a Long, Hard Recession
Mary Miller – Ariel Gold
The U.S. Struggle for Justice for Palestine Begins a New Chapter
Rajan Menon
How the Pandemic Hit Americans: Selective in Its Impact, the Virus Has Struck the Homeless Hard
Chuck Collins
Fair Tax Solutions for Cities Facing Covid-19 Budget Crises
George Ochenski
The Times They are a-Changin’
Neil Decenteceo
Small Island Countries Aren’t Waiting for Rich Countries to Act on Climate
Binoy Kampmark
Blue Steak on Lygon Street: The Mario Corniola Effect
Nan Levinson
Veterans Go to Washington: So What?
July 15, 2020
Jennifer Loewenstein
Forging Greater Israel: Annexation by Any Other Name
John Davis
This is No Way to Live
Melvin Goodman
Bolton’s Book is Not the “Bomb” as Advertised
Kenneth Surin
Boris Johnson’s “Blundering Brilliance”…Now Only the Blundering Remains
Daniel Warner
Audacity and Hope in the Summer of Discontent
Thomas Klikauer – Nadine Campbell
Propaganda Beyond Trump
Omar Ramahi
Hagia Sophia and the Catastrophe of Symbolism
Binoy Kampmark
The Yeezy Effect: Kanye West Joins the Presidential Race
Robin Wonsley – Ty Moore
Minneapolis Ballot Measure to Dismantle the Police Will Test the Strength of Our Movement
Robert Jensen
‘Cancel Culture’ Cannot Erase a Strong Argument
Tom Clifford
Jack Charlton, Soccer and Ireland’s Working Class
Elliot Sperber
Mother Goose in the End Times
July 14, 2020
Anthony DiMaggio
Canceling the Cancel Culture: Enriching Discourse or Dumbing it Down?
Patrick Cockburn
Boris Johnson Should not be Making New Global Enemies When His Country is in a Shambles
Frank Joyce
Lift From the Bottom? Yes.
Richard C. Gross
The Crackdown on Foreign Students
Steven Salaita
Should We Cancel “Cancel Culture”?
Paul Street
Sorry, the Chicago Blackhawks Need to Change Their Name and Logo
Jonathan Cook
‘Cancel Culture’ Letter is About Stifling Free Speech, Not Protecting It
John Feffer
The Global Rushmore of Autocrats
C. Douglas Lummis
Pillar of Sand in Okinawa
B. Nimri Aziz
Soft Power: Americans in Its Grip at Home Must Face the Mischief It Wields by BNimri Aziz July 11/2020
Cesar Chelala
What was lost when Ringling Bros. Left the Circus
Dan Bacher
California Regulators Approve 12 New Permits for Chevron to Frack in Kern County
George Wuerthner
Shrinking Wilderness in the Gallatin Range
Lawrence Davidson
Woodrow Wilson’s Racism: the Basis For His Support of Zionism
Binoy Kampmark
Mosques, Museums and Politics: the Fate of Hagia Sophia
Dean Baker
Propaganda on Government Action and Inequality from David Leonhardt
July 13, 2020
Gerald Sussman
The Russiagate Spectacle: Season 2?