Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T22:27:48.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - Information Technology, Privacy, and the Protection of Personal Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2009

By
Jeroen Van Den Hoven
Edited by
Jeroen van den Hoven  and
John Weckert
Jeroen Van Den Hoven
Affiliation:
Professor of moral philosophy Delft University of Technology
John Weckert
Affiliation:
Charles Sturt University, Albury, New South Wales
Get access

Summary

Information technology allows us to generate, store, and process huge quantities of data. Search engines, satellites, sensor networks, scientists, security agencies, marketers, and database managers are processing terabytes of data per day. A good part of these data are about persons – about their characteristics, their thoughts, their movements, behaviour, communications, and preferences – or they can be used to produce such data. All countries and cultures in the present and past have constrained access to certain types of personal data in some way or the other (see Moore 1984). There are etiquettes, customs, artefacts, technologies, or laws, and combinations thereof, which prevent or proscribe against the use or dissemination of personal information. Walls, curtains, doors, veils, sealed envelopes, sunglasses, clothes, locked cabinets, privacy laws, secure databases, cryptographic keys, and passwords all serve the purpose of preventing individual persons to acquire and use information about other persons. The issues are often discussed in the context of a specific social sector or professional domain, such as health care, social or homeland security, search engines, marketing, or policing. More specifically the issues can be concerned with camera surveillance, the monitoring of Internet communications, the retention of Internet traffic data, the disclosure of passenger lists to security agencies, the availability of individual medical information in the public health system, the linking and matching of databases in social security to detect fraud, and sifting and trawling through financial databases in order to find suspect transactions.

Type
Chapter
Information
Information Technology and Moral Philosophy , pp. 301 - 321
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarts, E., and Encarnacao, J. L. (Eds.). 2006. True Visions. The Emergence of Ambient Intelligence. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Bach, K. 1987. Thought and Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benn, S. 1988. A Theory of Freedom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 277, 288 (resp).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlin, I. 1969. Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 156, n. 1.Google Scholar
Caplan, J., and Torpey, J. C. (Eds.). 2001. Documenting Individual Identity: The Development of State Practices in the Modern World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Castaneda, H.-N. 1989. Thinking, Language and Experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Jasay, A. 1989. Social Contract, Free Ride: A Study of the Public Goods. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Donellan, K. 1966. Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Review, 75, 281–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etzioni, A. 1996. Less privacy is good for us. The Responsive Community, Summer, 11–13. Available at www.gwu.edu/~ccps/etzioni/M28.pdf.Google Scholar
Etzioni, A. 2005. Limits of privacy, in Cohen, A. I. and Wellman, C. H. (Eds.), Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 253–262.Google Scholar
European Parliament. 1995. Directive 95/46/EC on The protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data, adopted October 24 1195, Official Journal, 281, pp. 31–50, Brussels.
Garver, N. 1990. Why pluralism now?Monist, 7, 388–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gavison, R. 1980. Privacy and the limits of law. Yale Law Journal, 89, 421–471. Reprinted in Schoeman, F. (Ed.). 1984. Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 346–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monteiro, N. P. 2004. No privacy, no poetry, no progress. Department of Political Science, University of Chicago, Political Theory Workshop, 18 October 2004. Available at www.pwt.uchicago.edu/monteiro002.pdf.
Moor, J. H. 2006. The nature, importance, and difficulty of machine ethics. Machine Ethics, 21, 4, 18–21.
Moore, B. 1984. Privacy: Studies in Social and Cultural History. New York: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Moran, R. 2001. Authority and Estrangement. An Essay on Self-Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Nagel, T. 1998. Concealment and exposure. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 27, 1, 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nissenbaum, H. 2004. Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79, 1, 119–158.Google Scholar
Ortiz Hill, C. 1997. Rethinking Identity and Metaphysics, On the Foundations of Analytic Philosophy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Perry, J. 2002. Identity, Personal Identity and the Self. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, p. 195.Google Scholar
Perry, T. D. 1986. Professional Philosophy. What it is and Why it Matters. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Quittner, J. 1997. The death of privacy. Time, 25 August, p. 18.Google Scholar
Roessler, B. 2005. The Value of Privacy. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1978. The Problems of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Safire, W. 2005. Goodbye to Privacy. New York Times, April 10.Google Scholar
Sandel, M. J. 1989. Moral argument and liberal toleration: Abortion and homosexuality. California Law Review, 77, 521–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoeman, F. (Ed.). 1984. Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 346–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solove, D. J. 2002. Conceptualizing privacy. California Law Review, 90, 4, 1087–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spinello, R. 1997. End of privacy. America, 176, January 4–11, 9–13.Google Scholar
Hoven, M. J. 1999. Privacy and the varieties of informational wrongdoing. Australian Journal of Professional and Applied Ethics, 1, 1, 30–44.Google Scholar
Hoven, M. J. 2006. Nanotechnology and privacy: the instructive case of RFID. International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 20, 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoven, J., and Cushman, R. 1996. Privacy, Health Care Data and Information Technology, Conference Report. Journal of Information, Law, and Technology (JILT), 3. Available at http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/1996_3/hoven/Google Scholar
Hoven, M. J., and Manders, M. 2006. Identiteitsmanagement en morele identificatie' (Identity management and moral identification). ANTW, 98, 2, 111–128.Google Scholar
Velleman, J. D. 1996. Self to self. Philosophical Review, 105, 1, 39–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velleman, J. D. 2001. The genesis of shame. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 30, 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner DeCew, J. 1997. In Pursuit of Privacy: Law, Ethics, and the Limits of Technology. Ithaca and London: Cornell Press.Google Scholar
Walzer, M. 1983. Spheres of Justice. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Walzer, M. 1995. Critique of liberalism, in Amitai Etzioni, (Ed.), New Communitarian Thinking. Richmond: University Press of Virginia, p. 63.
Warren, S., and Brandeis, L. D. 1890. The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4, 193–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiegel, V., Hoven, M. J., and Lokhorst, G. J. C. 2005. Privacy, deontic epistemic action logic and software agents: An executable approach to modeling moral constraints in complex informational relationships. Ethics and Information Technology, 7, 4, 251–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, B. 1973. Problems of the Self. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×