nach oben

Erschienen in:

2018 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

3. Mapping the Privacy Rationales

verfasst von : Aurelia Tamò-Larrieux

Erschienen in: Designing for Privacy and its Legal Framework

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Why should we protect informational privacy? Scholars from various fields have explored this question and arrived at different answers. This chapter groups the rationales and aims of privacy and data protection into four different perspectives. Here, a perspective on privacy denotes a desire to achieve a specific, valued condition. Each perspective refers to a particular set of assumptions behind the protection of privacy which are generally accepted in Western societies (Cf. i.a. Bygrave, Data Protection Law—Approaching Its Rationale, Logic and Limits. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, pp. 125 et seqq., pp. 150 et seqq., 2002; Bygrave, Data Privacy Law—An International Perspective. Oxford: University Press, pp. 8 et seqq., 2014; Tavani, The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics, pp. 135 et seqq., 2008). All perspectives together lead to a holistic picture of what constitutes privacy and why its protection is important. The goal here is not to provide an exhaustive survey of the philosophies behind privacy protection (and informational privacy protection in particular), but rather to structure the most relevant themes in the literature by focusing on the underlying interests of informational privacy and data protection.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Research Approach

Nächstes Kapitel Privacy Protection in an Internet of Things Environment

Solove, pp. 87-88.

Solove, p. 87; building upon Solove, the IETF issued guidance for including privacy considerations into Internet protocols, cf. IETF, Privacy Considerations, pp. 12 et seqq.

Solove, p. 98.

Cf. i.a. Cate, p. 31; Cohen, pp. 152 et seqq.; Nissenbaum, in particular pp. 129 et seqq.; cf. also Sect. 8.3.

Cate, p. 31.

In 1888 Eastman Kodak Company received a US Patent Nr. 388,550 for the invention of the photographic film; cf. Camp, p. 130; Langheinrich, p. 24; PCAST Report 2014, p. 3.

Warren/Brandeis, pp. 205-207 in particular.

Tavani, pp. 135-136; Tavani, Philosophical Theories, pp. 5-6; cf. also Bygrave, p. 131.

Gavison, p. 428.

Cf. Bygrave, p. 132; Häusermann, pp. 115-117.

Bygrave, p. 132; Häusermann, pp. 115-117. Note that this theory has been criticized as it fails to precisely delineate the various spheres from one another.

Tavani, pp. 144-146 with reference to Moor, pp. 27 et seqq.; Tavani/Moor, p. 6 et seqq.; Tavani, Philosophical Theories, pp. 9 et seqq.; cf. also Sect. 8.2.

Tavani, p. 141. Cf. also Gavison who defines informational privacy as a “limitation of other’ access” to specific information about an individual. Gavison, p. 428.

Floridi, pp. 102-103; Floridi, Information ethics, p. 52 defining decisional privacy, as the “freedom from procedural interference or intrusion, achieved thanks to the exclusion of others from decisions,” or mental privacy as the “freedom from psychological interference or intrusion, achieved thanks to a restriction on others’ ability to access and manipulate the individual’s mind.”

Floridi, pp. 102-103; Floridi, Information ethics, p. 52.

Westin, pp. 34-39; cf. also Bygrave, pp. 132-134; Cate, pp. 25-26.

Cate, pp. 25-26; cf. also Westin, pp. 34-39.

Bygrave, p. 133 with further references; cf. also Altman, pp. 48-50.

Cohen, pp. 149-150.

Bygrave, p. 133 with reference to Westin, pp. 33 et seqq.

Cate, pp. 23-24; Gavison, p. 455.

Cf. Gavison, p. 455; Schwartz, pp. 1648 et seqq.; Westin, pp. 37-39.

Bygrave, p. 135 and p. 151.

Westin, p. 7 focusing on the relationship between state and individuals. Westin’s definition has been adopted by other scholars and in other contexts as well. Cf. i.a. Altman, p. 17; Cate, pp. 23-24; Fried, p. 209; Miller, p. 25.

Tavani, pp. 144-146 with reference to Moor, pp. 27 et seqq.; Tavani/Moor, p. 6 et seqq.; Tavani, Philosophical Theories, pp. 9 et seqq. Cf. also Mulligan/King, p. 1021.

Tavani, p. 141 with reference to Floridi, Ontological interpretation, pp. 193-194; cf. also Langheinrich, pp. 70-72 on privacy as property.

Floridi, p. 116.

Cf. on the discussion of privacy as property Samuelson, pp. 1125 et seqq.; Cohen, Examined Lives, pp. 1377 et seqq.; Langheinrich, pp. 70-72; Lessig, Code 1, pp. 159-162; Lessig, Code 2, pp. 228-230.

Pentland, pp. 180-181 in particular; cf. also WEF Report, 2011.

Bygrave, p. 151.

The German Federal Constitutional Court defined the term self-determination in the context of data protection, cf. BVerfGE 65,1, 1983. Cf. also Floridi, Information ethics, p. 52 defining self-determination as “freedom from procedural interference.”; Tavani, pp. 136-137; Sect. 5.2.

Bygrave, p. 24.

Cf. Mulligan/King, p. 1021.

Nissenbaum, p. 127.

Cf. Nissenbaum, pp. 127 et seqq.; Nissenbaum’s theory expands upon her earlier work: cf. Nissenbaum, Contextual Integrity, p. 119; Nissenbaum, Information Age, pp. 559 et seqq.

Nissenbaum, pp. 140 et seqq; Nissenbaum, Contextual Integrity, p. 137.

Tavani, p. 147 with reference to Nissenbaum, Contextual Integrity, p. 137.

Tavani, p. 148.

Altman, p. 10.

Agre, pp. 7-12; cf. also Gürses, p. 31; Hildebrant, Profiling, pp. 312-318 on the meaning of “identity”; Palen/Doursih, pp. 129 et seqq.

Atlman, p. 11; Cohen, p. 152; cf. also Palen/Doursih, pp. 129 et seqq.

Cohen, p. 152.

Cf. Atlman, p. 11; Cohen, p. 152; cf. also Druey, pp. 157 et sqq.; Häusermann, pp. 73 et seqq.; Palen/Doursih, pp. 129 et seqq.

Bygrave, p. 134, cf. also p. 151.

Cf. Floridi, pp. 116-118; Floridi, Ontological interpretation, pp. 193-194.

Solove, pp. 101-170; cf. Chap. 7.

Even though Solove focuses on issues resulting out of the relationship “citizen-state,” his taxonomy can be applied to different settings (such as a “consumer-service provider” relationship). Cf. also Schneier, Schneier on Security, 2013 who points out that the private sector surveillance considerably affects the “citizen-state” relationship.

Cf. Solove, pp. 101-172.

Solove, pp. 175-179; cf. on the chilling effects also Zuboff, p. 82.

Greenleaf, p. 248.

Hermstrüwer, p. 25.

Cf. Acquisti/Grossklags, pp. 363 et seqq.; Acquisti/Brandimarte/Loewenstein, p. 510; Barnes, S., unpaginated; Berendt/Günther/Spiekermann, pp. 104-105; Zuiderveen Borgesius, Behavioral Economics, pp. 43 et seqq.; Carey/Burkell, pp. 67-71; Kirsten/Nissenbaum, pp. 176 et seqq.; Norberg/Horne/Horne, pp. 100 et seqq.; Rubinstein, PbD, p. 1434; Spiekermann/Grossklags/Berendt, pp. 38 et seqq.

Berendt/Günther/Spiekermann, pp. 101-106; Zuiderveen Borgesius, Behavioral Economics, pp. 43 et seqq.; Spiekermann/Grossklags/Berendt, pp. 38 et seqq.; cf. also Kobsa, pp. 636-644 on the factors that influence individual’s willingness to disclose information with website operators (e.g., the value data subjects assign to personalization, or the information they receive over how their data is being used and how much control they have over this usage).

Cohen, p. 108; Kirsten/Nissenbaum, pp. 176 et seqq.; cf. also Kobsa, pp. 628 et seqq.

Cf. Acquisti/Brandimarte/Loewenstein, pp. 509-510 with further references. Cf. also Hermstrüwer, pp. 16 et seqq.; Kirsten/Nissenbaum, pp. 176 et seqq.

Kirsten/Nissenbaum, p. 177; cf. also Hermstrüwer, pp. 16 et seqq.; Eurobarometer 431, 2015; Eurobarometer 359, 2011, p. 1; PEW Cybersecurity Report, 2015.

Berendt/Günther/Spiekermann, pp. 101-106; cf. also Brown/Marsden, p. 66.

Whitten/Tygar, pp. 679 et seqq.; cf. also Brown/Marsden, p. 66 with reference to London Economics, 2010, p. xi; Carey/Burkell, p. 68 with reference to Milne/Rohm/Bahl, pp. 217 et seqq. and Jensen/Potts/Jensen, pp. 203 et seqq.

Greenberg, Wired, 2014.

Cf. Acquisti/Grossklags, p. 365; cf. also Acquisti/Brandimarte/Loewenstein, pp. 509-511; Brunton/Nissenbaum, unpaginated; Cohen, p. 108; Rubinstein, PbD, pp. 1433-1436; Sect. 1.2.

Acquisti/Grossklags, p. 369.

Cf. Acquisti, pp. 21-29; Zuiderveen Borgesius, Behavioral Economics, pp. 40 et seqq.; Brown/Marsden, p. 66.

Acquisti/Grossklags, pp. 372-373; cf. also London Economics, 2010, pp. 40 et seqq.; Directorate-General, 2011, pp. 37-40.

Brandimarte/Acquistit/Loewenstein, unpaginated; cf. also Hermstrüwer, pp. 23 et seqq.; Kobsa, p. 638.

Acquisti/Brandimarte/Loewenstein, p. 512.

Acquisti/Brandimarte/Loewenstein, p. 512 with reference to Johnson/Goldstein, pp. 1338 et seqq.; cf. also Hartzog, pp. 1661 et seqq.; Hartzog, Blueprint, p. 35 et seq. on the influence of design in shaping our privacy perception; McKenzie/Liersch/Finkelstein, pp. 414 et seqq.

Acquisti/Brandimarte/Loewenstein, p. 512 with further references; cf. also Brunton/Nissenbaum, unpaginated; Hermstrüwer, pp. 19 et seqq.

Acquisti/Brandimarte/Loewenstein, p. 512 with reference Conti/Sobiesk, pp. 271 et seqq.; cf. also Calo, pp. 1012 et seqq.; Hartzog, pp. 1665 et seqq.; Hartzog, Blueprint, p. 36 et seqq.

Opinion EDPS, 2014, p. 26.

Lessig, Code 2, p. 227.

Cf. Hartzog, Blueprint, pp. 97 et seqq.; Richards/Hartzog, pp. 447 et seqq.; Tang/Hu/Smith, pp. 156-157; van Rest et al., pp. 60-61; WEF Report, 2012, pp. 7 et seqq.; cf. also Brandimarte/Acquistit/Loewenstein, unpaginated; Cerf et. al., p. 8; Kobsa, p. 639; Rachovista, pp. 381-382; Opinion EDPS, 2010.

Cf. i.a. Hartzog, Blueprint, pp. 97 et seqq.; Langheinrich, pp. 61-64; Richards/Hartzog, pp. 447 et seqq.; Tang/Hu/Smith, pp. 156-157. A popular example showing the importance of trust for cooperation and economic exchange is the “prisoner’s dilemma” from game theory.

Cate, pp. 28-29.

Cf. WEF Report, 2012; Opinion EDPS, 2010; cf. also Rachovista, pp. 381-382.

Hobbes refers to the performance of a social contract (where one party trusts the other party to perform his part) as the “keeping of a promise”. Cf. also Baumgold, pp. 1 et seqq.

Häusermann, p. 100 with reference to Luhmann, p. 28, 53 et seq.

Cf. i.a. Häusermann, p. 100; Langheinrich, p. 56; Luhmann, pp. 27 et seqq.; Pentland, p. 21.

Luhmann, pp. 27 et seqq.

Häusermann, p. 100.

Luhmann, p. 28, pp. 47 et seqq, pp. 60 et seqq.; Häusermann, pp. 100-101.

van Rest et al., pp. 60-61; cf. also Brandimarte/Acquistit/Loewenstein, unpaginated; Kobsa, p. 639.

van Rest et al., pp. 60-61.

Kobsa, pp. 642-644 with further references to various studies in this respect. Cf. also Tang/Hu/Smith, p. 157; Floridi, pp. 123-124.

Tang/Hu/Smith, pp. 156-157 with reference to Belanger/Hiller/Smith, pp. 245 et seqq. and Kim/Benbasat, pp. 49 et seqq.

Kobsa, pp. 644-645 with further references to various studies in this respect.

Cf. Acquisti/Brandimarte/Loewenstein, p. 511 with reference to Xu et al., pp. 135 et seqq.; Tang/Hu/Smith, p. 169.

Acquisti/Friedman/Teland, unpaginated, finding a negative impact of data breaches on a company’s (stock) market value; cf. also Brown/Marsden, p. 65; Rubinstein, PbD, pp. 1440-1444; cf. also Schwartz/Janger, pp. 935 et seqq. on reputational sanctions.

Cf. i.a. Barnes, p. 1; Cerf et al., p. 10; Firesmith, p. 2; Freiling et al., pp. 20-22; Pohl, p. 678. Sometimes the terminology reliability is used instead of safety, cf. Federrath/Pfitzmann, p. 859.

Freiling et al., p. 20.

System defined in Avižiens et al. p. 12 as “an entity that interacts with other entities, i.e., other systems, including hardware, software, humans and the physical world with its natural phenomena.”

Freiling et al., p. 20; cf. also Pohl, pp. 678-679; IETF, Security Glossary, p. 149.

Cerf et al., p. 10; Pohl, pp. 678-679; IETF, Security Glossary, p. 149. Simplified, safety means that the software produced should not “harm the world,” citation from Barnes, p. 1.

Cerf et al., p. 10; Pohl, pp. 678-679; IETF, Security Glossary, pp. 146 et seqq. Simplified, security is characterized as “the world must not harm the software,” citation from Barnes, p. 1.

Freiling et al., p. 20; Firesmith, p. 34; Pohl, pp. 681-683.

Cf. Freiling et al. p. 20; Firesmith, p. 2.

100

Rachovista, p. 386.

101

Contrasting both terminologies, Saltzer and Schroeder define privacy as “the ability of an individual (or organization) to decide whether, when, and to whom personal (or organizational) information is released” and security as the “mechanisms and techniques that control who may use or modify the computer or the information stored in it.” Cf. Saltzer/Schroeder, pp. 1278 et seqq.; cf. also Camp, p. 66; PCAST Report, 2014, p. 33-34.

Acquisti, A. & Grossklags, J. (2008). What Can Behavioral Economics Tech Us about Privacy? In A. Acquisti, S. Gritzalis, C. Lambrinoudakis, S. di Vimercatiet (Eds.), Digital Privacy—Theory, Technologies, and Practices (pp. 363-377). New York: Auerbach Publications.

Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L. & Loewenstein, G. (2015). Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science, 347(6221), 509-514.CrossRef

Acquisti, A. Friedman, A. & Telang, R. (2006). Is There a Cost to Privacy Breaches? An Event Study. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, Milwaukee, USA, unpaginated.

Agre, P. (1997). Introduction. In P. Agre & M. Rotenberg (Eds.), Technology and privacy: the new landscape (pp. 1-28). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Altman, I. (1975). The Environment and Social Behavior—Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, Crowding. Monterey: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Avižienis, A., Lapire, J.C., Randell, B. & Landwehr, C. (2004). Basic Concepts and Taxonomy of Dependable and Secure Computing. IEEE Computer Society, 1(1), 1-23.

Barnes, J. (2008). Safe and Secure Software: An Invitation to Ada 2005. [Electronic version] AdaCore. Retrieved from <http://www.adacore.com/knowledge/technical-papers/safe-secure/>

Barnes, S. (2006). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States [Electronic journal]. First Monday, 11 (9), unpaginated. Retrieved from <http://firstmonday.org/article/view/1394/1312> (cited: Barnes, S.)

Baumgold, D. (2012). Trust in Hobbes’s Political Thought. Prepared for delivery at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association Convention, 1-21. Retrieved from <https://www.scribd.com/document/283537222/Trust-in-Hobbes-s-Political-Though>

Belanger, F., Hiller, J.S. & Smith, W. (2002). Trustworthiness in electronic commerce: The role of privacy, security, and site attributes. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11, 245-270.CrossRef

Berendt, B., Günther, O. & Spiekermann, S. (2005). Privacy in E-commerce: Stated Preferences vs. Actual Behavior. Communications of the ACM, 48(4), 101-106.CrossRef

Brandimarte, L., Acquisti, A. & Loewenstein, G. (2010). Misplaced Confidences: Privacy and the Control Paradox. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Workshop on the Economics of Information Security at Harvard University, Massachusetts, USA, unpaginated.

Brown, I. & Marsden, C. (2013). Regulating Code—Good Governance and Better Regulation in the Information Age. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Brunton, F. & Nissenbaum, H. (2011). Vernacular resistance to data collection and analysis: A political theory of obfuscation [Electronic journal]. First Monday, 16(5), unpaginated. Retrieved from <http://firstmonday.org/article/view/3493/2955>

Bygrave, L. (2014). Data Privacy Law—An International Perspective. Oxford: University Press. (cited: Data Privacy)CrossRef

———— (2002). Data Protection Law—Approaching Its Rationale, Logic and Limits. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

Calo, R. (2014). Digital Market Manipulation. George Washington Law Review, 82, 995-1051.

Camp, J. (2000). Trust and Risk in Internet Commerce. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Carey, R. & Burkell, J. (2009). A Heuristics Approach to Understanding Privacy-Protecting Behaviors in Digital Social Environments. In I. Kerr, C. Steeves & V. Lucock (Eds.), Lessons from the Identity Trail: Anonymity, Privacy and Identity in a Networked Society (pp. 65-82). Oxford: University Press.

Cate, F. (1997). Privacy in the Information Age. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.

Cerf, V., Ryan, P., Senges, M. & Whitt, R. (2016). IoT safety and security as shared responsibility. Internet Technologies Business Informatics, 1(35), 7-19.CrossRef

Cohen, J. (2012). Configuring the Networked Self: Law, Code, and the Play of Everyday Practice. New Haven: Yale University Press.

———— (2000). Examined Lives: Informational Privacy and the Subject as Object. Stanford Law Review, 52, 1373-1438. (cited: Examined Lives)CrossRef

Conti, G. & Sobiesk, E. (2010). Malicious Interface Design: Exploiting the User. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, ACM, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA, 271–280.

Druey, J.N. (1995). Information als Gegenstand des Rechts. Zürich: Schulthess.

Federrath, H. & Pfitzmann, A. (2011). Datensicherheit. In M. Schulte & R. Schröder (Eds.), Handbuch des Technikrechts—Allgemeine Grundlagen (pp. 857-886). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRef

Firesmith, D. (2003). Common Concepts Underlying Safety, Security, and Survivability Engineering [Electronic version]. Technical Note, CMU/SEI-2003-TN-033, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh. Retrieved from <http://resources.sei.cmu.edu/asset_files/TechnicalNote/2003_004_001_14198.pdf>

Floridi, L. (2014). The 4th Revolution—How the Infosphere is Reshaping Human Reality Oxford: University Press.

———— (2005). The ontological interpretation of informational privacy. Ethics and Information Technology, 1(1), 185-200. (cited: Ontological interpretation)

———— (1999). Information ethics: On the philosophical foundations of computer ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 1(1), 37-56. (cited: Information ethics)

Freiling, F., Grimm, R., Grosspietsch, K.E., Keller, H., Mottok, J., Münch, I., Rannenberg, K. & Saglietti, F. (2014). Technische Sicherheit und Informationssicherheit—Unterschiede und Gemeinsamkeiten. Informatik Spektrum, 37(1), 14-24.CrossRef

Fried, C. (1984). Privacy [a moral analysis] (reprinted from Yale Law Journal Vol. 77, 1968). In A. Schoeman (Ed.), Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy (pp. 203-222). Cambridge: University Press.CrossRef

Gavison, R. (1980). Privacy and the limits of the law. Yale Law Journal, 89(3), 421-471.CrossRef

Greenleaf, G. (2013). Data protection in a globalised network. In I. Brown (Ed.), Research Handbook on Governance of the Internet (pp. 221-259). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRef

Gürses, S.F. (2010). Multilateral Privacy Requirements Analysis in Online Social Network Services. Dissertation, Department of Computer Science, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Retrieved from <https://www.esat.kuleuven.be/cosic/publications/thesis-177.pdf>

Hartzog, W. (2018). Privacy’s Blueprint—The Battle to Control the Design of New Technologies. Cambridge: Havard University Press (cited: Blueprint).

———— (2011). Website Design as Contract. American University Law Review, 60(6), 1635-1671.

Häusermann, D. (2009). Vertraulichkeit als Schranke von Informationsansprüchen. Dissertation, Universität St. Gallen, Nr. 3546. St. Gallen: Dike.

Hermstrüwer, Y. (2017). Contracting Around Privacy: The (Behavioral) Law and Economics of Consent and Big Data. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law, 8(1), 9-26.

Hildebrandt, M. (2008). Profiling and the Identity of the European Citizen. In M. Hildebrandt & S. Gutwirth (Eds.), Profiling the European Citizen: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives (pp. 303-324). Heidelberg: Springer. (cited: Profiling)CrossRef

Hobbes, T. (1952). Leviathan (reprinted). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Jensen, C., Potts, C. & Jensen, C. (2005). Privacy Practices of Internet Users: Self-Reports Versus Observed Behavior. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63, 203-227.CrossRef

Johnson, E. & Goldstein, D. (2003). Do Defaults Save Lives? Science, 302(5649), 1338-1339.CrossRef

Kim, D. & Benbasat, I. (2003). Trust-related arguments in Internet stores: A framework for evaluation. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 4(2), 49-64.

Kirsten, M. & Nissenbaum, H. (2016). Measuring Privacy: An Empirical Test Using Context to Expose Confounding Variables. Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, 18, 176-218.

Kobsa, A. (2007). Privacy-Enhanced Web Personalization. In P. Brusilovski, A. Kobsa & W. Nejdl (Eds.), The Adaptive Web: Methods and Strategies of Web Personalization (pp. 628-670). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRef

Langheinrich, M. (2005). Personal Privacy in Ubiquitous Computing—Tools and System Support. Dissertation, ETH Zurich, No. 16100.

Lessig, L. (1999). Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books. (cited: Code 1)

———— (2006). Code version 2.0. New York: Basic Books. (cited: Code 2)

Luhmann, N. (2000). Vertrauen (4th edition). Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius.

McKenzie, C., Liersch, M. & Finkelstein, S. (2006). Recommendations implicit in policy defaults. Psychological Science, 17(5), 414-420.CrossRef

Miller, A. (1971). The Assault on Privacy—Computers, Data Banks, and Dossiers. Michigan: University Press.

Milne, G., Rohm, A. & Bahl, S. (2004). Consumers’ Protection of Online Privacy and Identity. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 38(2), 217-232.CrossRef

Moor, J. (1997). Towards a Theory of Privacy in the Information Age. Computers and Society, 27(3), 27-32.CrossRef

Mulligan, D. & King, J. (2014). Bridging the Gap Between Privacy and Design. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 14(4), 989-1034.

Nissenbaum, H. (2010). Privacy in Context—Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford: University Press.

———— (2004). Privacy as Contextual Integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1), 119-157. (cited: Contextual Integrity)

———— (1998). Protecting Privacy in an Information Age. Law and Philosophy, 17, 559-596. (cited: Information Age)

Norberg, P., Horne, D. & Horne, D. (2007). The Privacy Paradox: Personal Information Disclosure Intentions versus Behaviors. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41(1), 100–126.CrossRef

Palen, L. & Dourish, P. (2003). Unpacking “privacy” for a networked world. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA, 129-136. <https://doi.org/10.1145/642611.642635>

Pentland, A. (2014). Social Physics: How Good Ideas Spread—The Lessons from a New Science. New York: Penguin Press.

Pohl, H. (2004). Taxanomie und Modellbildung in der Informationssicherheit. Datenschutz und Datensicherheit, 28(11), 678-683.

Rachovista, A. (2016). Engineering and lawyering privacy by design: understanding online privacy both as a technical and an international human rights issue. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 24(4), 374-399.CrossRef

Richards, N. & Hartzog, W. (2015). Taking Trust Seriously in Privacy Law. Stanford Technology Law Review, 19, 431-472.

Rubinstein, I. (2012). Regulating Privacy by Design. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 26, 1409-1456. (cited: PbD)

Saltzer, J. & Schroeder, M. (1975). The Protection of Information in Computer Systems. Proceedings of the IEEE, 63(9), 1278-1308.CrossRef

Samuelson, P. (2000). Privacy as intellectual property? Stanford Law Review, 52, 1125-1137.CrossRef

Schwartz, P. (1999). Privacy and Democracy in Cyberspace. Vanderbilt Law Review, 52, 1607-1702.

Schwartz, P. & Janger, E. (2006). Notification of Data Security Breaches, Michigan Law Review, 105, 913-984.

Solove, D. (2008). Understanding Privacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Spiekermann, S., Grossklags, J. & Berendt, B. (2001). E-Privacy in 2nd Generation E-Commerce: Privacy Preferences versus actual Behavior. ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, Tampa, Florida, 38-47. <https://doi.org/10.1145/501158.501163>

Tang, S., Hu, Y. & Smith, M. (2008). Gaining Trust Through Online Privacy Protection: Self-Regulation, Mandatory Standards, or Caveat Emptor. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(4), 153-173.CrossRef

Tavani, H. (2008). Informational Privacy: Concepts, Theories, and Controversies. In K. Himma & H. Tavani (Eds.), The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics (pp. 131-164). Indianapolis: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRef

———— (2007). Philosophical Theories of Privacy: Implications for an Adequate Online Privacy Policy. Metaphilosophy, 38(1), 1-22. (cited: Philosophical Theories)CrossRef

Tavani, H. & Moor, J. (2001). Privacy protection, control of information, and privacy-enhancing technologies. Computers and Society, 31(1), 6-11.CrossRef

van Rest, J., Boonstra, D., Everts, M., van Rijn, M. & van Paassen, R. (2014). Designing Privacy-by-Design. In B. Preneel & D. Ikonomou, Privacy Technologies and Policy (pp. 55-72). (Revised selected papers from the First Annual Privacy Forum, APF 2012, Limassol, Cyprus). Heidelberg: Springer.

Warren, S. & Brandeis, L. (1890). The Right to Privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4 (5), 193-220.CrossRef

Westin A (1970). Privacy and Freedom. Atheneum.

Whitten, A. & Tygar, D. (1999). Why Johnny Can’t Encrypt. A Usability Evaluation of PGP 5.0. In L.F. Cranor & S. Garfinkel (Eds.), Security and Usability—Designing Secure Systems That People Can Use (pp. 679-702). Sebastopol: O’Reilly.

Xu, H., Teo, H.H., Tan, B. & Agarwal, R. (2009). The role of push-pull technology in privacy calculus: the case of location-based services. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(3), 135-174.CrossRef

Zuboff, S. (2015). Big Other: Surveillance Capitalism and the Prospects of Information Civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75-89.CrossRef

Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. (2013). Consent to Behavioral Targeting in European Law—What Are the Policy Implications of Insights From Behavioral Economics? Amsterdam Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2013-43. Retrieved from <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2300969> (cited: Behavioral Economics)

Greenberg, A. (2014, November 18). WhatsApp Just Switched on End-to-End Encryption for Hundreds of Millions of Users. Wired. Retrieved from <https://www.wired.com/2014/11/whatsapp-encrypted-messaging/> (cited: Greenberg, Wired, 2014)

Schneier, B. (2013, August 5). The Public/Private Surveillance Partnership. Blog Schneier on Security. Retrieved from <https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/08/the_publicpriva_1.html> (cited: Schneier, Blog on Security: Public/Private Surveillance Partnership, 2013)

Titel: Mapping the Privacy Rationales
verfasst von: Aurelia Tamò-Larrieux
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Designing for Privacy and its Legal Framework
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98623-4

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-98624-1

Copyright-Jahr: 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98624-1_3

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner