Date: Fri, 23 Dec 94 05:53:10 EST
Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler <owner-comp-privacy@uwm.edu>
From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator <comp-privacy@uwm.edu>
To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu
Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V5#077
Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 23 Dec 94 Volume 5 : Issue: 077
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Season's Greetings
Privacy Essay for Comment [long]
Table of Contents, Computerization & Controversy
Info on CPD, (unchanged since 11/28/94)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 23 Dec 1994 05:40:01 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Season's Greetings
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
--------------------------------------------+------------------------------+
_/I\_____________o______________o___/I\ | * / /_/ * __ ' .* |
I"""_____________|______________|___"""I\ | *// _|__|_ . *. |
[__][__][(******)__][__](******)[__][] \| |-\ ---//---*----(oo)----------|
[][__][__(******)][__][_(******)_][__] | | \\ // >-( )-< |
[__][__][_| |[__][__][| |][__][] | | \\)) . _.(......) * |
[][__][__]| .|_][__][__] .|__][__] | | || * |
[__][__][/ <_)[__][__]/ <_)][__][] | | || * |
[][__][ /..,/][__][__][/..,/_][__][__] | | / \\ * |
[__][__(__/][__][__][_(__/_][__][__][] | |______________________________|
[__][__]] | , , . [__][__][] |
[][__][_] | . i. '/ , [][__][__] | /\**/\ season's
[__][__]] | O .\ / /, O [__][__][] | ( o_o )_) greetings
_[][__][_] |__|======='=|____[][__][__] |_______,(u u ,),__________________
[__][__]]/ /|\-------/|\ [__][__][]/ {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
------------------------------
From: Rob Kling <kling@ics.uci.edu>
Date: 21 Dec 94 05:10:27 GMT
Subject: Privacy Essay for Comment [long]
This is an introductory essay in an anthology that is supposed to have
some balance ...
I'd appreciate comments re.. accuracy. clarity, gaps, etc.
Thanks
Rob Kling
- - -------------------------------
SOCIAL CONTROL AND PRIVACY
Introduction to Section V of:
Computerization and Controversy:
Value Conflicts and Social Choices (2nd Ed.)
Rob Kling (Ed.)
December 20, 1994-- Draft 1.01C
- - ---------------------------------
For: Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and
Social Choices. 2nd Ed: Rob Kling (Ed). Academic Press,
1995.
Copyright, 1994. Rob Kling.
Note: This article may be circulated for non-commercial
purposes. Please contact Rob Kling or compare it
with the final published version before quoting
directly.
- - --------------------------------
[9100 words]
PRIVACY: WHO WANTS IT?
Privacy is a powerful word with diverse connotations.
Consider these examples:
* The teenager who doesn't want her parents listening to
her phone calls with her new boyfriend, and criticizes
them for violating her privacy.
* A family sitting down for dinner around 7PM gets
frequent phone calls from telemarketers who want to
offer them great deals on car loans or prizes for visiting
delightful vacation properties. The family wants "more
privacy" during the few minutes that they spend together
each evening, but is reluctant to turn off their phones
because they may lose emergency calls.
* A young engineer is afraid to sign any political petitions,
because she is afraid that her employer might learn of
her signatures, not like her politics, and ruin her
promising career.
* A talented accountant moves to Texas to live closer to his
aging parents. But he has serious trouble finding a new
job because medical reports identify him as having lost
work from chronic backpain, and credit reports
inaccurately identify him as having mountains of unpaid
bills. He is never called for an interview, and has trouble
learning why he is ignored.
* A systems analyst who works for an office supply
company is fired after he criticizes his supervisor via
"private email." He thought that he had a right to share
his private views with a co-worker, and sees his company
as an even worse place to work if his supervisor can read
his subordinates email at will.
* A college student in a mid-western university is mortified
to find an anonymous mailing to a public electronic
bulletin board which casually describes him as having
served time in jail, in the context of a long note about the
changing admissions standards. He is mortified and finds
that some of his friends start avoiding him. He wants to
have the offending note promptly removed, and wants to
confront his accuser whose identity is masked by an
anonymous electronic remailing service.
Privacy has many connotations, and has become a catch-
phrase to signify diverse issues such as these. In their
landmark article, "The Right to Privacy," Warren and
Brandeis (1890) characterized privacy as a person's "right to
be left alone." This meaning catches some of what bothers the
teenager, the family, and the young engineer. But privacy is an
elastic term which has broader connotations. The family may
also wonder, "why are they always calling us, and how did
they get our names and phone numbers." (Culnan, 1993)?
The accountant may wonder whether potential employers
believe something about him that he doesn't know. After all,
he doesn't want to be left alone: he wants a job. And he may
soon want to know what information his prospective employers
are using to screen their applicants, and what is contained in
his profile. He would like to see employers' criteria for hiring,
information which they treat as private. He would like to know
that they are using his medical insurance records, and limit
access to them. And he would like to know that his credit
report is grossly inaccurate and be able to correct it. The
accounts is caught up in a large web of personal record
keeping systems about which he has little knowledge and over
which he has little control. For the accountant, privacy refers
to gaining control over the ways that information about him is
collected, verified, and passed on to other organizations.
The accused student may have served time in jail, but was
looking forward to a new life that college would open for him.
He would like to change his life, and also find out who is
harassing him.
Each of these examples illustrates some of the nuances of the
term privacy. The first selection, "Your Personal Information
Has Gone Public," by Professor David F. Linowes lists
numerous additional cases in which people have been denied
housing, insurance, and jobs because they were ignorant of
the information about them that apartment owners, banks,
insurers, and various employers were using to screen
applicants and set prices. He also reports some shocking cases
in which people had immense trouble in having their records
corrected when they were grossly inaccurate. The strength of
Linowes article is in the way that he concisely identifies the
meanings of threats to, privacy through vivid examples of
personal troubles. However, Linowes doesn't examine how
these social practices developed.
Linowes starts his article, with the provocative claim, "Privacy
invaders are all around us." But many of the people and
organizations who are seeking inofrmatioin about specific
individuals or sharing what they know may not see themselves
as "privacy invaders." Parents who are interested in the well-
being of their children, may see eavesdropping as a fair way to
learn about a secret, and potentially dangerous, relationship.
The banks that employ telemarketers are seeking good clients
for their loans, so that they can earn money on their deposits,
and pay their account-holders higher interests rate. A
manufacturing firm may carefully pre-screen applicants for an
accounting job with credit checks after having been embezzled
by an employee who had huge debts to pay off. And so on. The
office supply supervisor may feel that the morale of his work
groups is being undermined by a subordinate who continually
criticizes him and makes fun of him to his co-workers. And so
on. While some of these breaches of personal privacy could be
obnoxious or harmful to one party, in most cases they are not
merely frivolous. What kinds of guidelines should we have to
balance a person's privacy with other social goods, such as
parental guidance, the ability to conduct business, and the
ability to have citizens participate freely in political life?
Before examining some of the debates about these issues, it
helps to examine how North American societies developed
their current privacy practices.
RECORD KEEPING IN MOBILE SOCIETIES
In any society, people and groups spend some effort in
learning about and regulating each other's behavior. But the
means differ, and social issues raised by different means also
differ. In relatively small social units, such as families and
villages, people learn about each other's behavior through
direct observation, inference, and gossip. And the forms of
social control DD introduced to help insure compliance with
social expectations DD can range from those that are gentle,
to others that are harsh and even brutal.
A distinctive feature of villages and small towns is that many
business relationships are based on personal knowledge. For
example, store keepers and bankers know most of the people
to whom they offer credit, and they also know the extent to
which their customers are reliable. Yet even in small town
societies, people sometimes find it necessary to deal with large
and distant organizations DD e.g., government agencies such
as tax collectors and the military.
During the last 100 years, there has been an astounding
transformation in the ways that life in industrial societies is
organized. New means of transportation DD trains, buses,
cars, and airplanes DD enabled people to become very
mobile. In the early 19th century, most people who were born
in the United States lived and died within 50 miles of their
birthplaces. Today, in a highly mobile society, a huge fraction
of the urban population moves from city to city, following
better jobs and better places to live. Adolescents often leave
their home towns to attend college, and may move even
farther away for jobs. Further, over 130 metropolitan areas in
the United States number over 250,000 in population. Even
moving "across town" in one of these cities can bring a person
into a new network of friends, employers, and service
providers. This combination of mobility and urban
development means that many people seek jobs, goods, and
services from businesses whose proprietors and staff do not
have much firsthand knowledge about them.
The scale of businesses and the number of government
agencies with huge clienteles have also increased in the last
100 years. In the 19th century few businesses had thousands
of clients. And a smaller fraction of the public interacted
frequently with the larger businesses of the day. Similarly,
government agencies were also smaller. Overall, most business
was conducted through face to face (direct) relations. And
only very specific government activities, such as taxing and
drafting was carried out between people who didn't know each
other at all. Craig Calhoun (1992), characterizes
contemporary industrial societies as ones in which a
significant fraction of people's important activities are carried
out with the mediation of people whom they do not see and
may not even know exist. Today, banks can readily extend
credit to people who come from anywhere in the country. And
they can do so with relative safety because of large-scale credit
record systems that track the credit history of over
100,000,000 people. The credit check brings together a
credit-seeker and employees of the credit bureau who are
related indirectly.
Other private firms, such as insurance companies and mail
order companies, also extend services to tens of thousands of
people whom local agents do not -- and could not -- personally
know. In these transactions, judgments about insurability and
credit worthiness are made via indirect social relationships,
and are often mediated with computerized information
systems that are operated by data brokers such as TRW
Credit Data and the Medical Information Bureau.
Furthermore, many new government agencies, responsible for
accounting for the activities of millions of people, have been
created in the 20th century: the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (1908), the Internal Revenue Service (1913), the
Social Security Administration (1935), along with various state
departments of motor vehicles, etc. The sheer scale of these
services creates "environmental conditions" which incentivize
organizations to use computerized record systems to help
routinize the maintenance of indirect social relationships.
However, organizations of a similar kind and size, such as
banks or police agencies, differ in their aggressiveness in
using new technologies and management practices.
The U.S. has developed a body of privacy law which gives
people some explicit rights and protections in a few areas as
well as restricting wiretapping and other invasive acts. .
However, during the last 30 years, people have lost control
over records about them. Increasingly, courts have ruled that
records about a person belong to an organization, and the
person to whom they apply cannot restrict their use.
Consequently, inaccurate police records, medical records,
employment histories, etc. can harm people without their
explicit knowledge about why they are having trouble getting a
job, a loan, etc. Although a right to privacy is not set forth
in the Bill of Rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has protected
various privacy interests. The Court found sources for a right
to privacy in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and
14th Amendments to the Constitutions (U.S. Office of
Technology Assessment 1994). As our next selection, we
include the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution.
Many key social rights in the U.S. have been defended as
privacy rights by the U.S. Supreme Court. Many of these
privacy rights have little to do with computer systems, and are
more linked to "a right to be left alone." Supreme Court
Justices relied on privacy rights in Griswold v. Connecticut,
381 U.S. 479 (1965) which gave married couples to use birth
control. Prior to this ruling, some states banned the sale of
birth control devices. The majority opinion referred to "zones
of privacy" created in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth
Amendments. Similarly, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),
further extended the right of privacy "to encompass a woman's
decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy and
justified its action by reference to the 14th Amendment (U.S.
Office of Technology Assessment, 1994: 79; Garrow, 1994).
VALUE CONFLICTS IN CONTROVERSIES
ABOUT PERSONAL RECORD SYSTEMS AND
PRIVACY
Discussions of computerization and privacy are embroiled in a
major set of controversies with big stakes. On the one hand,
some people fear that emerging computer-based information
systems are helping to erode personal privacy. They would
like to see certain kinds of record systems regulated or limited
in scope. Others fear that new ways of doing business DD
taken together with computer systems DD have reduced
people's control over their personal affairs. On the other
hand, representatives of those private firms and government
agencies that have an interest in expanding their
computerized information systems frequently argue hard
against legal limits, or substantial accountability to people
about whom records are kept. They deny that problems exist,
or they argue that the reported problems are exaggerated in
importance. And they argue that proposed regulations are
either too vague or too burdensome, and that new regulations
about information systems would do more harm than good.
The proponents of unregulated computerization have been
wealthy, organized, and aligned with the anti-regulatory senti-
ments that have dominated U.S. Federal politics during the
last 15 years. Consequently, they have effectively blocked many
attempts to preserve personal privacy through regulation.
Managers and professional in business organizations and
public agencies, characterize their searches for information
about people in limited and pragmatic terms that improve
their rationality in making specific decisions about whom to
hire, to whom to extend a loan, to whom to rent an apartment,
and whom to arrest. From the viewpoint of individuals, these
searchers for personal information is sometimes fair and
sometimes invasive of their privacy.
Some of the key policy debates about computerization and
privacy of personal records reveal conflicting values, not just
conflicting interests. There are at least five major value
orientations which influence the terms of key debates (Kling,
1978). These values can also help us understand the social
repercussions of computer-based surveillance technologies:
Private enterprise model: The pre-eminent consideration is
profitability of financial systems, with the highest social
good being the profitability of both the firms providing
and the firms utilizing the systems. Other social goods
such as consumers' privacy or the desires of government
agencies for data are secondary concerns.
Statist model: The strength and efficiency of government
institutions is the highest goal--government needs for
access to personal data on citizens. The need for
mechanisms to enforce citizens' obligations to the state
will always prevail over other considerations.
Libertarian model: Civil liberties, such as those specified by the
US Bill of Rights, are to be maximized in any social
choice. Other social purposes such as profitability or
welfare of the state would be secondary when they conflict
with the prerogatives of the individual.
Neo-populist model: The practices of public agencies and
private enterprises should be easily intelligible to
ordinary citizens and be responsive to their needs.
Societal institutions should emphasize serving the
"ordinary person."
Systems model: Financial systems must be technically well
organized, efficient, reliable, and aesthetically pleasing.
In different instances, policies and developments may support,
conflict with, or be independent of these five value models.
Each of them, except the Systems model, has a large number
of supporters and a long tradition of support within the US.
Thus, computing developments that are congruent with any of
these positions might be argued to be in "the public interest."
Information entrepreneurialism is most directly aligned with
the private enterprise value model for guiding social action.
But the information capitalist approach can also support
statist values in cases where public agencies use computerized
information systems to model and explore alternative
revenue-generating programs, to assess the effectiveness of
social programs, or to track scofflaws through networks of
records systems. It is conceivable that information
entrepreneurialism could support neo-populist consumer
control, by constructing databases that report on the quality
of commercial products and services, or by enhancing access
to government records systems. However, such uses are
extremely rare, and are not accessible to the majority of
people, who are not computer savvy. It is difficult to imagine
that many new computerized systems would, on balance,
automatically support libertarian values. In the last section,
for example, we examined how electronic mail, which is stored
in computer systems, can lead to losses of privacy between
correspondents. However enhanced privacy regulations reduce
the extent to which computerized systems which support
statist or private enterprise values further erode personal
privacy in the United States.
The next six selections illustrate how debates about
computerization and privacy are anchored in these value
positions. The debates about computer file matching pit civil-
libertarian against statist values. The debates about the
proposed Clipper chip and government wiretapping pit statist
values against libertarian and private enterprise values. And
the debates about direct mail marketing pit private enterprise
values against neo-populist values.
Computer File Matching
Government agencies are often charged with regulatory and
policing activities DD social control on a large scale.
Information about the activities of potential or real
lawbreakers is a critical resource for their operations. But
privacy issues have taken on a new form and a new urgency
with the advent of computer matching, a technique involving
large data bases with unrelated purposes which are cross-
checked for consistency. For example, a state's automobile
registration records might be matched against tax records,
looking for individuals who own expensive cars, but who
declared only small incomes. Computer matching has been
used to track down and withhold tax refunds from parents
whose child support payments are in arrears; to ferret out
young adult males who have failed to register for the draft; to
detect ineligible welfare and / or food stamp recipients; and to
locate former students with delinquent loan payments. Advo-
cates of this approach, such as Richard Kusserow in our third
selection, argue that it is simply a tool necessary to carry out
institutional mandates DD e.g., helping to insure that fathers
pay child support. Critics rarely object to the specific ends to
which matching has been put so far. They would like to see
fathers pay their required child support, to reduce welfare
cheating, etc. At the same time, they see matching as Big
Brother's encroachment on individual privacy. Today, the
examples of computer matching are relatively benign DD but
there are no legal guarantees that the uses may not become
more and more intrusive as we enter the 21st century.
Matching can assist in controlling various illegal activities,
which is why the 1984 Deficit Reduction Act required all states
to participate in matching programs. Although the precise
number of matches that have been conducted is difficult to
determine because of the lack of a comprehensive reporting
mechanism, the U.S. Congress' Office of Technology
Assessment (OTA) testified that the number of computer
matches nearly tripled between 1980 and 1983. OTA also
conducted a survey on 20 percent of the federal-level computer
matching programs that were carried out between 1980 and
1985. Even within that limited number of matching programs,
agencies had exchanged 7 billion records. Moreover,
estimates of the magnitude of computer matching benefits
reported ranged from $4 to $54 for each $1 spent on a match
(GAO, 1993).
The fourth selection, by John Shattuck, reviews various
dangers of computer matching, among them the idea that
matching involves a presumption of guilt. [Check to see if he
also anticipates the GAO's findings of lax oversight]
Kusserow illustrates a "statist" value position and Shattuck's
paper illustrates a civil libertarian argument.
This debate illustrates some of the ways that statist and libertarian
advocates frame privacy issues. Since this debate was first published
in 1984, the US Congress passed the Computer Matching Privacy and
Protection Act of 1988. The matching law permits government agencies
to compare information from two or more sources to detect
discrepancies, which are then examined to see if fraud or some other
type of abuse has taken place. It also gives people affected by adverse
findings in a matching process a way to appeal, and requires that
people be notified 30 days in advance of the cutoff of benefits.
Many of the issues raised in this debate also surface in other
statist-libertarian debates over required identity cards to
streamline healthcare services or to reduce the number of
illegal immigrants in the United States.
Wiretapping, Encryption and the Clipper Chip
In the next selection, "Clipper Chip will Reinforce Privacy,"
Computer Scientist Dorothy Denning supports a new Digital
Telephony law that the US Department of Justice and its
Federal Bureau of Investigation proposed in 1992. This law
would require telecommunications service providers to assist
government agencies in tapping conversations and
communications. In the U.S., the Omnibus Crime and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 permits wiretapping only to investigate
serious felonies, and only when other forms of investigation
won't work or are too dangerous (U.S. Office of Technology
Assessment, 1994: 116). In the U.S., taping phone
conversations without the permission of all parties is against
the law and a social taboo. As an extreme example, a woman
in New York State was granted a divorce after her husband
taped her phone conversations (Geyelin, 1991).
According to testimony by an official of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, fewer than 1,000 wiretaps were authorized at the
local state and federal levels in the U.S. in 1992 (U.S. Office
of Technology Assessment, 1994: 116, note 10). FBI officials
fear that new encryption devices can scramble telephone calls
so effectively that a simple phone tap won't let them actually
hear an intelligible voice. They have been eager to promote a
specific family of encryption methods that would make it easy
to unscramble encrypted phone calls when a wiretap was
authorized through a court order.
In addition, new digital switching systems could mix diverse
phone calls on the same line in such a way that it could be
hard for a tap to isolate a single specific phone line and
conversation. FBI officials argued that they needed new help
from telephone companies and other telecommunications
services to be able to effectively tap phones in the future.
Since telecommunications systems and networks are often
used in the furtherance of criminal activities including
organized crime, racketeering, extortion, kidnapping,
espionage, terrorism, and trafficking in illegal drugs, the FBI
argued that it would be ineffective without an ability to
conduct wiretaps. Denning's article articulates these issues
from the viewpoint of the FBI, and also explains some of the
subtle technicalities that underlie this proposal and
subsequent debates.
The proposed Digital Telephony law ignited a firestorm of
controversy. Denning previous article advocating her
positions first appeared in Communications of the ACM along
with eight critical commentaries and one sympathetic
commentary by William A. Bayse, an Assistant Director of the
FBI's Technical Services Division. The criticisms came
primarily from two major value positions: civil libertarian and
private enterprise. The next selection, by Marc Rotenberg, a
lawyer who then directed CPSR's Washington office,
illustrates a civil libertarian analysis. Rotenberg acknowledges
the legitimacy of wiretapping in very special cases. But he is
wary of the FBI's proposal because they haven't documented
their case. In an earlier publication, Rotenberg (1993) also
observed that the FBI has not acknowledged its history of
abusing wiretaps and harassing groups that sought
progressive social change, especially in the 1950s and 1960s
(see Churchill and Van de Wall, 1990).
Direct Mail Marketing
There is a good chance that every day you receive some mail
from banks, credit card firms, political groups and/or mail
order firms with whom you've never done any business. You
might enjoy some of the unsolicited mail, and find some of it
to be a nuisance and a waste of paper and postage. The
average U.S. household receives between eight and nine pieces
of promotional mail per week A confirmed mail order buyer
may receive about 1,000 pieces a year (Hatch, 1993).The
privacy issues in direct mail differ from those of other
practices in that the recipients of unwanted mail or phone
calls are not deprived of jobs or important services. At worst,
it can seem to be a manageable nuisance. One key issue is the
question, "how did they get your name?"
In the next selection, "Privacy: How Much Data Do We Really
Need?" Denison Hatch argues that direct mail marketers often
collect much more personally sensitive data than they need.
He argues that direct mail marketing firms should regulate
their own behavior in a way which is respectful of potential
customer's sense of comfort. Hatch is not a strong libertarian,
and in fact, he is very critical of "the forces arrayed against
us--the media, government, liberal do-gooders, as well as those
in our own industry whose zeal for profits overwhelms their
common sense and decency." Even so, Hatch argues that
direct mailers should be sensitive to public concerns out of
self-interest, and regulate their own behavior through specific
"opt out" and fair information practices lest they be regulated.
In the next selection, Robert Posch, a vice president of legal
affairs for Doubleday Book & Music Clubs, Inc. argues
vehemently against Hatch's concerns about the public's
annoyance with some of the sloppy direct mail-phone
marketing campaigns. He argues that the Mail Preference
Service (MPS) which has allowed about 3 million people to
opt-out of receiving unsolicited direct mail, is primarily a
public relations device. Writing in Direct Marketing, he argues:
"Our opponents are competitive media (television, magazines,
newspapers, etc.) which have the power to editorialize and
create value perceptions in their product." Posch wants
advertising mail to be treated as (commercial) free speech and
to be given first amendment protections. While Posch is a
staunch advocate of private enterprise values, his article also
points to schisms in the business world -- between mailing list
services which facilitate direct mail-phone campaigns and
print and television media that thrive on mass advertising.
INDIVIDUAL, REGULATORY AND MARKET APPROACHES
FOR BALANCING PERSONAL PRIVACY WITH
OTHER SOCIAL VALUES
Some people do not find extensive personal record-keeping
objectionable, arguing that "If you haven't done anything
wrong, you have nothing to worry about". They think of
record-keeping that fits the routine behavior of legitimate
organizations DD banks wanting to know credit histories,
courts wanting to know prior criminal records etc.
Computer-based information systems can be used in a myriad
of ways that fit organizational practices. Many of these
practices are legitimate; some may be questionable; and some
may even be illegal. Problems arise under a variety of
circumstances, e.g., when the records about people are
inaccurate and they are unfairly denied a loan, a job, or
housing. In large-scale record systems (with millions of
records) there are bound to be inaccuracies. But people have
few rights to inspect records about them DD except for credit
records. During the last 30 years, people have lost control
over records about them. Increasingly, courts have ruled that
records about a person belong to an organization, and the
person to whom they apply cannot restrict their use.
Consequently, inaccurate police records, medical records,
employment histories, etc. can harm people without their
explicit knowledge about why they are having trouble getting a
job, a loan, etc.
Many of the issues of data ownership are complex and contro-
versial in themselves. For example, today there are major
controversies about whether people who test positive for AIDS
should be able to keep that information completely private. In
principle, the question has nothing to do with computer
systems. The controversy focuses in part on the public good
served by being able to identify AIDS carriers versus the
concern that many people may avoid AIDS testing if they
cannot be assured of the privacy of their test results. In
practice, the ability of organizations to share files electronical-
ly makes it more likely that personal information can pass
across organizational, state, and national boundaries, if it is
shared at all.
This approach has a certain clarity. But it is misleading as
well. First, almost everyone recognizes some point at which
one's personal activities are nobody else's business. A person
may wish only a specific party to know certain information
DD the bank to know the purpose of a loan, the doctor to
now the reasons for a visit, etc. Second, as the White House
"enemies" list and the Japanese-American incarceration sadly
show, it cannot be assumed that (legally obtained) information
will always be used for legal and ethical purposes. Last, in a
society where so many records are not under the control of
individual citizens, and are unavailable for people to review
for accuracy, people may be denied key social goods DD like
employment, housing, or credit DD when inaccurate informa-
tion about them is passed through the files of businesses and
public agencies without audit.
Studies of existing records have revealed widespread inaccura-
cies and ambiguities, with some state criminal history systems
having a majority of their records being inaccurate or
incomplete. As Kenneth C. Laudon (1986) demonstrates, a
person's arrest record almost always remains "in the system",
regardless of the disposition of the case (conviction, dismissal
of charges, etc.). All too often, the records show no
disposition whatsoever. And many employers are unwilling to
hire applicants with an arrest record, no matter how the case
against them was eventually resolved. Laudon also found that
employers and apartment house owners, not just police, were
major users of criminal history systems.
Many citizens have grown so accustomed to detailing their
medical histories and handing over their social security
numbers that they scarcely give the matter a second thought.
Probably few of them realize the extent to which computeriza-
tion provides a record of individual activities: an electronic
trail of one's whereabouts is available in the records of
Electronic Funds Transfers (EFTs), airline reservation
systems, rental car agencies, telephone calls, and credit card
purchases. In certain emergency situations, these records may
be used for salutary purposes; the movements of accused
killer Ramon Salcido were reportedly traced by monitoring his
ATM transactions. But in less extreme circumstances,
certain aspects of one's life are arguably a private matter.
Some video stores, for example, maintain an ongoing record of
each customer's rentals, until these records were protected by
the Federal Video Privacy Protection Act in 1988. Given
cheap long-term information storage, combined with
interconnected data systems, it becomes progressively difficult
for anyone to escape the record of activities that have long
past. Diverse personal information is subject to compromise
and abuse any time that an unauthorized party gains access to
it, and there is plenty of evidence that today's large-scale
computer systems are not adequately secure. (Issues
concerning the reliability and security of computer systems
are discussed in Section VI of this volume.)
A huge fraction of the literature about computerization, social
control, and privacy refers to regulatory strategies for
striking fair and sound balances between conflicts values and
interests. These regulatory strategies vary widely from one
country to another. For example, in 1973 Sweden instituted a
nation-wide Data Inspection Board which licenses all data
bases with significant personal records (Flaherty, 1989: 93-94).
In contrast with this highly centralized and bureaucratic
approach, the United States regulates very few uses of
personal data. And Hiramatsu (1993:74) notes that
"Traditionally, the Japanese have not been very sensitive to
the right of privacy."
The Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 (15 USC 1681) was the
first comprehensive piece of Federal legislation to give
consumers legal protections from difficulties of inaccurate
credit records. The Act requires credit bureaus to have
"reasonable procedures" for insuring that information that
they collect and disseminate is accurate. It permits
consumers to see any credit information that has been used to
deny them a loan, and also contains provisions for consumers
to contest inaccurate information or to fill in incomplete
information. But few people check their credit records with
major data brokers like TRW until they have been denied a
loan, and it can then take precious months to straighten out
inaccurate records or problems of mistaken identity. As a U.
S. Government report aptly noted,
The fact that the Fair Credit Reporting Act will
enable him to get errors in the record corrected can
be small and bitter comfort to a traveler stranded in
a strange city late at night because information
about his credit-card account status was inaccurately
reported to an independent authorization service.
In 1974, US Congress passed a Federal Privacy Act that
embodies five major principles of fair information practices.
While the Privacy Act applied only to Federal agencies, these
principles have influenced many people's thinking about an
appropriate structure for regulating other personal records
systems:
1. There must be no secret personal data record keeping
system.
2. There must be a way for individuals to discover what
personal information is recorded and how it is used.
3. There must be a way for individuals to prevent
information about themselves, obtained for one purpose,
from being used or made available for other purposes
without their consent.
4. There must be a way for individuals to correct or amend
a record of information about themselves.
5. An organization creating, maintaining, using, or
disseminating records of identifiable personal data must
assure the reliability of the data for its intended use and
must take reasonable precautions to prevent misuses of
the data. (U.S. Office of Technology Assessment,
1994:xxx).
The Privacy Act gives individuals the right to access much of
the personal information about them kept by federal agencies.
The Privacy Act of 1974 also established a Privacy Protection
Study Commission, which in 1977 issued a substantial report
on its findings and recommendations. Although comput-
erization was not a focal point in the report, it is never far
below the surface.
The Commission made 155 recommendations to develop "fair
information practices". Many of these recommendations gave
people the right to know what records are kept about them, to
inspect records for accuracy, to correct (or contest)
inaccuracies, to be informed when records were transferred
from one organization to another, etc. Less than a handful of
these proposals were enacted into Federal Law.
In the last 15 years, numerous privacy laws have been
introduced into various state legislatures and into the U.S.
Congress. Most of these laws were effectively killed by
representatives of the industries whose actions would have
been constrained. Even so, a few laws have passed where
organizations have had a strong interest in drawing customers
with promises of confidentiality. The Right to Financial
Privacy Act of 1988 and the Family Educational Right to
Privacy Act. These Acts enable the right of access and review
by the data subject, require that data be accurate and place
limitations on access by third parties (Trubow, 1992). In
addition, the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 prohibits
disclosure of personal information in video rental records and
the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 regulates the
disclosure of cable television subscriber records. But these few
national laws are exceptions. Aside from the regulation of
personal records maintained by Federal agencies, whole
domains of record keeping and record sharing, such as
medical, employment, and insurance records, are open to the
preferences of the record keeping organizations. In discussing
the regulations about telecommunications in the U.S., Law
Professor George Trubow observes:
Subsequent to the break-up of our Bell System, a
variety of entrepreneurs have begun to provide
telecommunications services which vary from state to
state and are virtually unregulated with respect to
customer information practices. "Caller I.D.," for
instance, has been approved in some states without
any opportunity for the caller to block disclosure of
his phone number; other states have required this
option. Additionally, the regional Bell companies
which replaced the national Bell System have
recently been permitted to develop and market data
bases so they themselves can supply information
about customers; previously, message-switching was
the principal function of the "Baby Bells" (Trubow,
1992).
Analysts respond in diverse ways to this state of affairs.
Private enterprise advocates like Robert Posch and statist
advocates like Richard Kusserow are relatively happy, and
criticize additional legislation as hampering the
competitiveness of business or the efficiency of government
agencies. Civil libertarians like Marc Rotenberg and
Management Professor H. Jeff Smith (1993, 1994) seek
policies and laws which give people fair protections against
record keeping and information sharing practices which harm
people and which do not result in a compelling social good.
Civil libertarians face difficult dilemmas because new
technologies can support new services or organizational
practices which can reduce people's privacy. There are a few
technologies, such as encryption, where more powerful
methods can enhance the privacy of communicants. But
encryption is the rare example, in contrast with the diverse
technologies for collecting data, storing, manipulating,
retrieving, portraying, and communicating it.
In the U.S., privacy laws tend to be reactive -- to be enacted
after some explicit damage has been documented. For
example, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
was enacted after many people were sick and tired of receiving
numerous prerecorded telephone solicitations when they were
selected with autodialers and specialized databases. After a
reporter obtained a list of videos rented by Robert Bork, a
nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987, Congress passed
the Video Privacy Protection Act in 1988 (Flaherty,
1989:451). Some civil libertarians believe that passing
privacy protection laws is insufficient, since the U.S. legal
system now puts the burden of enforcement on individuals
who have been harmed and who must seek redress through
the courts. Historian David Flaherty concluded his study of
privacy protections in the Germany, Sweden, France, Canada
and the U.S. with the observation that an agency to enforce
privacy laws is a necessary part of an effective regulatory
apparatus (Flaherty, 1989:381-385).
Some civil libertarians who have been long term observers of
the dramas of computerization and weak public privacy
protections in the U.S. and Canada have become discouraged
with the possibility of creating an effective protective
framework based on the current regulatory approaches.
Kenneth Laudon develops a new approach, in the next
selection, "Markets and Privacy." He argues that giving people
property rights in data about themselves and creating markets
where people can receive fair compensation for data about
themselves is a viable alternative. Laudon provides a broad
sketch of his approach and anchors it within interesting
economic theories. The core issues are important: that
personally sensitive data can have economic value, and that
individuals can make the tradeoffs between their preferences
for privacy and the value of the data that they could sell.
Unfortunately, Laudon doesn't examine the nitty gritty details.
Could an insurance company reduce its rates by 20% to
clients who are willing to share all of their medical data?
Would personal privacy be primarily a luxury, or would most
data sell for so little that only those who don't care or are
relatively poor would be very open? Even so, Laudon's market
proposal sets a controversial new direction for structuring
privacy protection and information access.
In the selection "What to do When they Ask for Your SSN,"
Chris Hibbert takes an activist stance. Hibbert is interested in
making laws effective by encouraging people to know their
rights and to argue for them when they are asked for
personally sensitive data. His article builds on a deep
American tradition of informed citizens actively protecting
their rights (also see Smith, 1979). Hibbert's article also tells
us about the history and controls over the use of the Social
Security number.
THE CONTINUING GROWTH OF
PERSONAL RECORD SYSTEMS AND SUPPORTING
TECHNOLOGIES
What are the forces that underlie the expansion of
organizations' gathering records about people's lives? One
view is that bureaucracies have a natural appetite for informa-
tion, since information represents a source of power. A
second explanation is proposed by James B. Rule and his
colleagues (1980) , who argue that much of the pressure for
information gathering stems from public demand that
organizations make "fine-grained" discriminations in
determining eligibility for goods and services. If, for example,
all citizens were entitled to free health care, the need to collect
information about insurance and employment would
disappear. If all car drivers paid similar rates DD rather
than receiving "good driver discounts" and paying higher rates
for many driving offenses D- the demands for driver history
information would be reduced.
Mark Ackerman, Jonathan Allen and I examine a third view
in the final selection, "Information Entrepreneurialism and
the Growth of the Electronic Cage." We link the adoption and
use of new computer technologies for large-scale record
keeping to a set of social practices we refer to as information
entrepreneurialism. Information entrepreneurial explanations
focus on the active attempts of coalitions within organizations
to organize production in such a way as to take advantage of
changes in society and information technology. The internal
structure of organizations has been transformed by the rise of
professional managers who have been trained and rewarded to
pursue managerial strategies that depend upon data-intensive
analysis techniques, such as precision direct mail marketing
and data-mining. Information entrepreneurial practices are
made efficacious by some of the major social transformations
in industrialized society over the past century: the increasing
mobility of populations, the growth of nationwide
organizations, and the increasing importance of indirect social
relationships. Information entrepreneurial practices are also
encouraged by the development of more cost-effective
technologies for managing large-scale databases. As an
organization shifts its managerial style to be more information
entrepreneurial, analysts organize, implement, and utilize
information systems to improve marketing, production, and
operations. Information systems multiply, as cost accounting,
production monitoring, and market surveys becomes a key
resource in advancing the organizations' competitive edge.
Only a small fraction of these information systems contain
personally sensitive data. But across the United States, these
can lead to hundreds, if not thousands, of new personal
record systems created every year.
We argue that information entrepreneurialism relies on a set
of skills that people are likely to learn in certain academic
programs, such as MBA degree programs. We examined some
popular MBA texts which teach students about information
systems, and found that their discussions of privacy issues
were relatively superficial. Schooling is, however, just the
beginning for many of the managers who seek to innovate. The
business press publishes (and exaggerates) stories of
computerization efforts that promise better markets and
profits. Magazines like The Harvard Business Review and
Business Week publish stories about using information
technology, including data systems with privacy dimensions,
for competitive advantage. But they rarely highlight the
privacy issues in their enthusiasm to excite managerial
readers about new ways of conceiving of business
opportunities. In addition, professional associations help
managers learn diverse approaches to their trades. But in
some professions, such as marketing, finance, and operations
management, computerization strategies play an important
role. Professional associations in these fields offer talks,
workshops and publications for their members which also
help popularize key aspects of information entrepreneurialism.
Professor David Linowes started the first selection with the
provocative claim, "Privacy invaders are all around us." Mark
Ackerman, Jonathan Allen and I believe that "privacy
invaders" can be information entrepreneurs; and they are
made rather than born. Our article is a provocative sketch of
the social system that rewards informational
entrepreneurship, as well as some of the ways that talented
people learn the relevant skills and orientation.
CONCLUSION
Debates about computerization and fair information practices
will not go away DD even though they catch public attention
intermittently. For a variety of "sensible" social reasons,
organizations expand their computerized record systems and
their use of dataveillance techniques. As Roger Shattuck
notes, it is difficult to document cases of real harm, because
there are no agencies collecting such information. Conse-
quently, those who see people losing control, and
organizations becoming less accountable, hang a lot of weight
on the relatively small number of well-documented problems.
But, we wonder, is this an appropriate state of affairs? What
social costs are we incurring as we wait for problems to
become visible, or to mount until regulation - however late
DD becomes necessary.
In the meantime, computer professionals play key roles in
expanding the variety and uses of personnel systems. But,
given that many such systems raise important ethical issues,
the question arises as to why some computer professionals
often seem untroubled by their advocacy. Some may argue
that they are unaware of any ethical repercussions; others
maintain that computer science is a technical discipline,
unconnected with value questions; and still others say that "If
I don't do it, somebody else will anyway". We examine these
and other ethical matters in Section VII.
ARTICLES IN THIS BOOK: SOURCES
Linowes, David. 1993. "Your Personal Information Has Gone
Public." Illinois Quarterly. (6)2:22-24.
Murphy, Gerald. (ed.) Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.
Distributed by the Cybercasting Services Division of the
National Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN).
**Shattuck, John. 1984. "Computer Matching is a Serious
Threat to Individual Rights." Communications of the ACM.
(27)6(June):538-5.
**Kusserow, Richard P. 1984. "The Government Needs
Computer Matching to Root Out Waste and Fraud."
Communications of the ACM. (27)6(June):542-545.
Dorothy Denning. "Clipper Chip will Reinforce Privacy."
Insight. (Oct, 24, 1994):18-20.
Rotenberg, Marc. Wiretapping Bill: Costly and Intrusive.
Insight. (Oct, 24, 1994):20-22.
Laudon, Ken. 1994. "Privacy and Markets." [Original article
for book.]
Posch, Robert. 1994. "After MPS - Then what?" Direct
Marketing. (56)11(March):63-64.
Hatch, Denison. 1994. "Privacy: How much data do we really
need? Target Marketing. 17(2)(Feb):35-40.
Hibbert, Chris. 1993. "What to do When they Ask for Your
SSN." Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.
(November 1994).
Rob Kling, Mark Ackerman and Jonathan P. Allen. "How the
Marriage of Management and Computing Intensifies the
Struggle for Personal Privacy: Value Conflicts and Social
Change."
ARTICLES IN C&C1 [to integrate into refererences]
Clarke, Roger C. 1988. "Information Technology and
Dataveillance." Communications of the ACM.
(31)5(May):498-512.
Kling, Rob. 1983. "Value Conflicts in EFT systems".
Excerpted from "Value Conflicts and Computing
Developments: Developed and Developing Countries".
Telecommunications Policy. (7)1(March): 12-34.
Laudon, Kenneth C. 1980. "Comment on 'Preserving
Individual Autonomy in an Information-Oriented
Society.'" In Lance J. Hoffman et. al. Computer Privacy in
the Next Decade. New York: Academic Press. 89-95.
Privacy Protection Study Commission. 1977. Personal Privacy
in an Information Society. U.S. Government Printing
Office. 3-37.
Richards, Evelyn. 1989. "Proposed FBI Crime Computer
System Raises Questions on Accuracy, Privacy . . ." The
Washington Post. (February 13.) [Posted on RISKS-
FORUM Digest. (8)27(February 16)].
Rule, James B. et. al. 1980. "Preserving Individual Autonomy
in an Information-Oriented Society." In Lance J.
Hoffman et. al. Computer Privacy in the Next Decade. New
York: Academic Press. 65-87
REFERENCES
Bennett, Colin J. 1992. Regulating privacy : data protection and
public policy in Europe and the United States. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
Burnham, David. 1983. The Rise of the Computer State. New
York: Random House.
Calhoun, Craig. 1992. "The Infrastructure of Modernity:
Indirect Social Relationships, Information Technology,
and Social Integration." In H. Haferkamp, and N.
Smelser. (eds.) Social Change and Modernity. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Churchill, Ward and Jim Vander Wall. 1990. The
COINTELPRO Papers : Documents from the FBI's Secret
Wars Against Domestic Dissent. Boston: South End Press.
Culnan, Mary J. 1993. "How did they get my name? An
Exploratory Investigation of Consumer Attitudes Toward
Secondary Information Use. MIS Quarterly.
(17)3(September):341-363.
Denning, Dorothy. "To Tap or Not to Tap." Communications
of the ACM (36)3 (March, 1993):26-35
Flaherty, David H. 1989. Protecting Privacy in Surveillance
Societies : the Federal Republic of Germany, Sweden, France,
Canada, and the United States. Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina.
Garrow, David J. 1994. Liberty and Sexuality : the Right to
Privacy and the Making of Roe V. Wade. New York:
Macmillan.
Geyelin, Milo. 1991. "Husband's Wiretap is Grounds for
Divorce, New York Judge Rules." Wall Street Journal.
(Monday, November 11):B3(W), B3(E), col 4.
Hatch, Denison. 1993. "The True Cost of Our Excesses."
Target Marketing. (16)12 (December):22.
Hiramatsu, Tsuyoshi. 1993. "Protecting Telecommunications
Privacy in Japan." Communications of the ACM.
(36)8(August):74-77.
Hoffman, Lance: "Clipping Clipper" Lance Hoffman. CACM
36(9)(Sept 1993):15-17.
Kling, Rob. 1978. "Value Conflicts and Social Choice in Elec-
tronic Funds Transfer Systems." Communications of the
ACM. (21)8(August):642-657.
Landau, Susan, et al. 1994. "Crypto Policy Perspectives."
Communications of the ACM. 37(8)(August):115-121.
Mitgang, Herbert. 1989. Dangerous Dossiers. New York:
Ballantine Books.
Posch, Robert J Jr. "1994." Direct Marketing v57, n6 (Oct
1994):68-69+.
Rotenberg, Marc. 1993. Commentary on "To Tap or Not To
Tap." Communications of the ACM v36, n3 (March,
1993):36-39.
Rule, James, Douglas McAdam, Linda Stearns, and David
Uglow. 1980. The Politics of Privacy: Planning for Personal
Data Systems as Powerful Technologies. New York: Elsevier
North-Holland
Smith, Jeff. 1993. Privacy policies and practices: inside the
organizational maze. Communications of the ACM v36,
n12 (Dec):104-119.
Smith, H. Jeff. 1994. Managing Privacy: Information Technology
and Corporate America. Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press.
Smith, Robert Ellis. 1979. Privacy, how to protect what's left of
it. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press.
Trubow, George B. 1992. The European harmonization of
data protection laws threatens U.S. participation in
trans border data flow. Northwestern Journal of
International Law & Business v13, n1 (Spring/Summer
1992):159-176.
U.S. Office of Technology Assessment. 1994. Information
Security and Privacy in Network Environments.
OTA-TCT-606 (September). Washington, DC: U. S.
Government Printing Office.
United States General Accounting Office. 1993. (Computer
matching report). Get Title.
FOR FURTHER READING
Agre, Philip E. 1994. Surveillance and capture: Two models of
privacy. Information Society v10, n2 (Apr-Jun):101-127.
Branscomb, Anne.
Culnan, Mary. 1993. "How Did They get My Name?" MIS
Quarterly. (17)3(September):341-363.
Clement, Andrew. 1994."Considering Privacy in the
Development of Multi-media Communications." Computer
Supported Cooperative Work. 2:67-88. (reprinted in Section
VII of this book)
Freedman, Warren. 1987. The Right of Privacy in the Computer
Age. New York: Quorum Books.
Kling, Rob and Suzanne Iacono. 1984. "Computing as an
Occasion for Social Control." Journal of Social Issues.
(40)3:77-96.
Laudon, Kenneth C. 1986. Dossier Society: Value Choices in the
Design of National Information Systems. New York: Colum-
bia University.
Lyon, David. 1994. The Electronic Eye. Minneapolis, Minn:
University of Minnesota Press.
Lyon, David and Elia Zureik (Eds). (in press). New
Technology, Surveillance and Social Control Minneapolis,
Minn:University of Minnesota Press.
Marx, Gary. 1985. "I'll Be Watching You: Reflections on the
New Surveillance." Dissent. 32(Winter):26-34.
Privacy Protection Study Commission. 1977. Personal Privacy
in an Information Society. 052-003-00395-3. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Riley, Michael G. 1990. "Sorry Your Card is No Good: A
Nightmarish Tale from the Realm of Consumer Credit
Ratings." Time Magazine. (135)15(April 9):62.
Rubin, Michael Rogers. 1988. Private Rights, Public Wrongs :
the Computer and Personal Privacy. Norwood: Ablex.
------------------------------
From: Rob Kling <kling@ics.uci.edu>
Date: 21 Dec 94 05:11:48 GMT
Subject: Table of Contents, Computerization & Controversy
For context re. the intro that I circulated for comments/corrections,
I'm sending the anthologies' table of contents.
Best wishes,
Rob Kling
---------------
COMPUTERIZATION AND CONTROVERSY:
Value Conflicts and Social Choices. 2nd Ed:
(Draft 4S9 D:\PUBS\CC2\TOC\READ94s9.WPO)
Rob Kling (Ed).
Academic Press, 1995.
Dec 20, 1994
The 2nd edition of Computerization & Controversy will include
about 60 articles which examine the social aspects of
computerization from different perspectives. Some of the
articles are paired to form a head-on debate. Many articles
represent important viewpoints which are not often heard in
the conventional discussions. The articles are written by
scholars and professionals in computer science, information
systems, management, journalism, psychology, law, library
science, sociology.
Each of the book's 7 sections is introduced with a 15-27 page
essay that frames the major controversies, locates the
selections within the debates, points to other literature, etc.
The 2nd edition will be similar in length and appearance to
the first edition (750 pages and a pleasant font). However, I
have selected a larger number of shorter articles, so as to
better represent a larger variety of issues and perspectives.
[Note: **'d articles are being retained from the first edition.]
In contrast with the 1st edition, the 2nd edition shifts the
focus towards networking/cyberspace as an arena for
examining the social dimensions of computerization. The
introductions have been completely restructured and rewritten
to address new issues and to better focus the debates.
Table of Contents:
** Preface
** Social Controversies About Computerization: An
Introduction
-- Rob Kling (17 pages)
I. THE DREAMS OF TECHNOLOGICAL UTOPIANISM --
(Note: These articles generally illustrate technological
utopianism and anti-utopianism in non-fiction works.)
A. Technological Utopianism -- An Introduction -- Rob
Kling (18 pages)
B. Kelley, Kevin. "The Electronic Hive - Embrace It"
Harper's 228 (1728)(May 1994):20-25. (Adapted from
Out of Control: The Rise of Neo-biological
Civilization. Addison-Wesley, 1994).
C. Birkerts, Sven. "The Electronic Hive - Refuse It"
Harper's 228 (1728)(May 1994):17-20 (Adapted from
The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an
Electronic Age. Faber and Faber in press.)
D. Stewart, Thomas A. "Boom time on the new frontier."
Fortune 128:7 (1993) (Autumn, 1993):153-161.
E. Weiland, Ross. "2001: A meetings odyssey. Successful
Meetings, 42:13 (Dec. 1993):34-39.
F. Winner, Langdon. 1992. "Silicon Valley Mystery House"
in Variations on a Theme Park: The New American City
and the End of Public Space. edited by Michael
Sorkin. New York: Noonday Press. (2 page excerpt).
G. Suzanne Iacono and Rob Kling. "Computerization
Movements and Tales of Technological Utopianism"
[new article for C&C2] (8600 words)
II. THE ECONOMIC, CULTURAL and ORGANIZATIONAL
DIMENSIONS OF COMPUTERIZATION
A. The Economic, Cultural and Organizational
Dimensions of Computerization: An Introduction --
Rob Kling (21 pages)
B. Ariav, Gadi and Seymour Goodman. Israel: Of Swords
and Software Plowshares. Communications of the
ACM 37(6)(June 1994):17-21.
C. **Feder, Barnaby J. "Getting the Electronics Just
Right: Wells Fargo is a Case Study in How a
Company can Exploit the Information Revolution."
New York Times, Business Section, Sunday, June 4,
1989: pp 1,8.
D. Morton, Michael Scott. Excerpt from The Corporation
of the 1990's: Information Technology &
Organizational Transformation. Michael Scott
Morton (ed).(Oxford U Press, 1991) (6000 word
excerpt from intro).
E. **Frantz, Douglas. "B of A's Plans for Computer Don't
Add Up." Los Angeles Times. (Sunday). February 8,
1988.
F. Kirkpatrick, David. "Groupware goes boom."(effects of
groupware software packages on corporations)
Fortune (128)16 (Dec. 27, 1993):99-103.
G. Orlikowski, Wanda. "Learning from Notes:
Organizational Issues in Groupware
Implementation." Proc. Conference on
Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Jon Turner
and Robert Kraut (Ed.) New York, ACM Press,
1992.
H. Becker, Henry Jay. "A Truly Empowering Technology-
Rich Education-- How Much Will it Cost?"
Educational IRM Quarterly 3(1)(September 1993):31-
35 (with figures).
I. Hodas, Steven. "Technology Refusal and The
Organizational Culture of Schools." Previously
published (Sept 1993) in the e-journal, (10800 words)
J. **Baily, Martin Neal. "Great Expectations: PCs and
Productivity" PC Computing 2(4) (April 1989):
137-141.
N. Attewell, Paul. "Information Technology and the
Productivity Challenge."
O. King, John. Where is the Payoff from Computing?
(Original article for this book). (6000 words)
Q. Kling, Rob and J.P. Allen. "Can Computer Science
Solve Organizational Problems?: The Case for
Organizational Informatics." [Original article for
this book. (6100 words)]
III. COMPUTERIZATION AND THE
TRANSFORMATION OF WORK
A. Computerization in Work: An Introduction -- Rob Kling
(This section has fewer articles than others. But many
articles in other sections examine work issues, included
those Winner, Hodas, Kling, Markus, RSI debates,
Dahlbom & Matthiasen, Wagner). (27 pages)
B. **Kling, Rob and Suzanne Iacono ``Office Routine:
The Automated Pink Collar" IEEE Spectrum (June
1984):73-76.
C. Marx, Gary. The Case of the Omniscient Organization.
Harvard Business Review. (March-April 1990):4-12. [8
pages, est.]
D. Horwitz, Tony. Mr. Edens Profits from Watching His
Workers' Every Move. The Wall Street Journal. Dec
1, 1994, page A11. (2000 words)
E. Clement, Andrew. Computing at Work: Empowering
Action by 'Low-level Users'. Communications of the
ACM (37)1 (Jan. 1994):52-65. (9889 words) [revised for
C&C2]
F. **Bullen, Christine and John Bennett. "Groupware in
Practice: An Interpretation of Work Experience"
[original article]
G. Poltrock, Steven E and Grudin, Jonathan, 1994. "
Interface Development in a Large Organization: An
Observational Study." ACM Transactions on
Computer and Human Interaction. 1(1)(March 1994):
52-80 (revised to 9200 words).
G. Suchman, Lucy. "Supporting Articulation Work:
Aspects of a feminist practice office technology
production". To be published in the Proceedings
of the 5th IFIP WG9.1 Conference on Women,
Work and Computerization, Amsterdam, Elsevier.
1994. [[revised for C&C2]]
IV. SOCIAL RELATIONS IN ELECTRONIC
COMMUNITIES
A. Social Relations in Electronic Communities: An
Introduction -- Rob Kling (22 pages)
B. Sproull, Lee and Sara Kiesler. "Increasing Personal
Connections." Connections. Cambridge: MIT
Press. 1991. p. 79-102. (7910 words).
B. Markus, M. Lynne. "Finding a 'Happy Medium': The
Explaining the Negative Effects of Electronic
Communication on Social Life at Work" from ACM
Transactions on Information Systems. (12)2 (April
1994):119-149.
C. Mantovani, Giuseppe. 1994. Is computer-mediated
communication intrinsically apt to enhance
democracy in organizations? Human Relations v47,
n1 (Jan):45-62 [edited for C&C2 (6750 words)]
D. Kaufman, Margo. "They Call it Cyberlove" Los Angeles
Times Magazine (Sept 12, 1993): 45-62.
E. ** Lindsy Van Gelder, "The Strange Case of the
Electronic Lover: A Real-Life Story of Deception,
Seduction, and Technology". Ms., (14)4 (October,
1985), pp. 94, 99, 101-104, 117, 123, 124.
F. Van Tassel, Joan. "Yakety-Yak, Do Talk Back: PEN, the
Nation's First Publicly Funded Electronic Network,
Makes a Difference in Sanata Monica." Wired 2.01
(January, 1994):78-80. (3 pp w/box. (1878 words)
G. Dibbell, Julian. 1993 "Taboo, Consensus, and the
Challenge of Democracy in an Electronic
Community." .(originally titled) .. "A Rape in
Cyberspace or How an Evil Clown, a Haitian
Trickster Spirit, Two Wizards, and a Cast of Dozens
Turned a Database Into a Society" (From The
Village Voice, December 21, 1993, pp:36-42.) [8500
words]
H. Kadie, Carl M. "Applying Library Intellectual
Freedom Principles to Public and Academic
Computers" Proc. Computers, Freedom, and
Privacy '94 (March 1994)
I. Okerson, Ann. "The Electronic Journal: What, Whence,
and When?" The Public-Access Computer Systems
Review 2, no. 1 (1991): 5-24. (5800 words)
J. Crawford, Walt. "I Heard It Through the Internet."
.(originally titled) . "And Only Half of What You
See, Part III: I Heard It Through the Internet." The
Public-Access Computer Systems Review 5, no. 6
(1994): 27-30. Or, use the following URL: gopher://
info.lib.uh.edu:70/00/articles/e-journals/uhlibrary/pacsreview/
v5/n6/crawford.5n6. (895 words)
K. Gregorian, Vartan. 1994. "Information Technology,
Scholaship and the Humanities" originally titled
-- "Technology, Scholaship and the Humanities:
Implications of the Electronic Age." Leonardo.
(27)2:155-164. [3750 word excerpt of 5200 word
article]
L. Richard Sclove and Jeffrey Scheuer. "On the Road
Again: If Information Highways Are Anything Like
Interstate Highways -- Watch Out!" [Original article
for this book.] [4300 words]
V. PRIVACY and SOCIAL CONTROL
A. Privacy and Social Control: An Introduction -- Rob
Kling (21 pages)
B. Linowes, David. "Your Personal Information Has Gone
Public." Illinois Quarterly 6:(2) 22-24, 1993.
C. Bill of Rights (Amendments to the US Constitution)
[536 words]
D. **John Shattuck, "Computer Matching is a Serious
Threat to Individual Rights", CACM, (27)6 (June,
1984), pp. 538-541.
E. **Richard P. Kusserow, "The Government Needs
Computer Matching to Root Out Waste and Fraud",
CACM, (27)6 (June, 1984), pp. 542-545.
F. Dorothy Denning. "Clipper Chip will Reinforce
Privacy." Insight. (Oct, 24, 1994):18-20. (about 3,000
words)
G. Rotenberg, Marc. Wiretapping Bill: Costly and
Intrusive. Insight. (Oct, 24, 1994):20-22. (about 3,000
words)
H. Hatch, Denison. 1994. "How much data do direct
marketers really neeed?" (originally titled) "Privacy:
How much data do we really need? Target Marketing
17(2) (Feb):35-40. (3850 words)
I. Posch, Robert. 1994. "Direct Marketing is Not a
Significant Privacy Threat" (originally titled) "After
MPS - Then what? Direct Marketing 56(11)
(March):63-64+.
J. Hibbert, Chris. "What to do When they Ask for Your
SSN." (posted on alt.privacy, comp.answers and
news.answers) [4915 words]
K. Laudon, Ken. "Markets and Privacy." [original ms.]
L. Rob Kling, Mark Ackerman and Jonathan P. Allen.
"Information Entrepreneurialim and the Growth of
the Electronic Cage." [original ms.]
VI. SYSTEM SAFETY and SOCIAL VULNERABILITY
A. System Safety and Social Vulnerability: An Introduction
-- Rob Kling (18 pages)
B. ** " Risks of Voicemail Systems That Expect a Human
at the Other End" Posting by R. Aminzade, RISKS-
FORUM Digest, Vol. 9, Issue 61 (January 20, 1990)
C. "Ottawa Library fines people using unreliable
automatic calling system"
Posting by Michael Slavitch, RISKS-FORUM Digest,
Vol. 15, Issue 54 (November 1994) (353 words)
D. **Jonathan Jacky, "Safety-Critical Computing:
Hazards, Practices, Standards and Regulation".
Original manuscript for C&C, updated for C&C2.
E. Stix, Gary. "Aging Airways." Scientific American. (May
1994)270(5):96-104.
F. **Brian Cantwell Smith, "The Limits of Correctness".
Issued as Report No. CSLI-85-35 by the Center for
the Study of Language and Information (Stanford
University), (Copyright 1985 by Brian Cantwell
Smith). (Also printed in the ACM SIG journal
Computers and Society, combined (14)4 and (15)1, 2,
3 (Winter / Spring / Summer / Fall, 1985), pp. 18-26.
G. Williamson, Evan. 1994. Caught in the Grip of
RSI: A First-hand Account. Managing Office
Technology 39(5)(May):40-41.
H. Khalil, Omar E M and Melcher, Jessie E. 1994. Office
Automation's Threat to Health and Productivity: a
New Management Concern. SAM Advanced
Management Journal 59(3)(Summer):10-14.
I. Computer Emergency Response Team. 1994.
"Ongoing Network Monitoring Attacks." CERT
Advisory CA-94:01 (February 3). [1922 words]
J. Neumann, Peter G. Risks of technology. (attitudes)
(Inside Risks) Communications of the ACM (36)3
(March, 1993):130 [Draws upon Jerry Mander's 10
Principles from in the Absence of the Sacred : the
Failure of Technology and the Survival of the Indian
Nations San Francisco : Sierra Club Books, 1991.
VII. BEYOND OUTLAWS HACKERS and PIRATES:
ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES AND PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR INFORMATION AND
COMPUTER SCIENCE PROFESSIONALS
A. Beyond Outlaws, Hackers and Pirates: An Introduction
to Ethical Perspectives and Professional
Responsibilities for Information and Computer
Science Professionals. -- Rob Kling (17 pages)
B. Parker, Donn B.; Swope, Susan; Baker, Bruce N.;
Weiss, Eric A. 1990. "All in a Day's Work: Nine
Provocative Examples in the Practice of Computing
Professionals" (excerpted and adapted from)
"Self-assessment procedure XXII.:Ethical values in
computer professions" Communications of the ACM
(33)11 (Nov, 1990):110-133. (Edited cases -- 1878
words)
C. Anderson, Ronald, Johnson, Deborah G.; Gotterbarn,
Donald; Perolle, Judith. "Codes of Professional
Ethics" from From: "Using the new ACM Code of
Ethics in decision making." CACM 36(2)(Feb,
1993):98-108. [439 words]
D. Association of Computing Machinery. 1993. "ACM Code
of Ethics and Professional Conduct." Communications
of the ACM. 36(2)(Feb.):99-103. [3376 words]
E. Wagner, Ina. 1993. "Confronting Ethical Issues of
Systems Design in a Web of Social Relationships"
was published as "a Web of Fuzzy Problems:
Confronting the Ethical Issues." Communications of
the ACM 36(4) (June):94-101.
F. Dahlbom, Bo and Lars Mathiassen. 1993. "Power in
Systems Design." Excerpts from Chapter 9 of
Computers in Context. Blackwell Pub Co.
G. Clement, Andrew. 1994. "Considering Privacy in the
Development of Multi-media Communications."
Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2:67-88.
H. Wenk Jr., Edward. 1988. "New Principles for
Engineering Ethics" was published as "Roots of
Ethics, Wings of Foresight: " BENT of Tau Beta Pi.:
18-23 (6000 words).
-------------------------------
VIII. Resource List
A. How to contact key organizations: CPSR, Electronic
Freedom Foundation, SIGCAS,
B. How to get copies of your records from TRW
CreditData, the Medical Information Bureau.
C. Key Internet resources: comp.risks, comp.society, where
to find rsi.faq
D. Teaching & supporting materials for C&C2.
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 28 Nov 1994 08:46:14 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Info on CPD, (unchanged since 11/28/94)
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
The Computer Privacy Digest is a forum for discussion on the effect of
technology on privacy or vice versa. The digest is moderated and
gatewayed into the USENET newsgroup comp.society.privacy (Moderated).
Submissions should be sent to comp-privacy@uwm.edu and administrative
requests to comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu.
This digest is a forum with information contributed via Internet
eMail. Those who understand the technology also understand the ease of
forgery in this very free medium. Statements, therefore, should be
taken with a grain of salt and it should be clear that the actual
contributor might not be the person whose email address is posted at
the top. Any user who openly wishes to post anonymously should inform
the moderator at the beginning of the posting. He will comply.
If you read this from the comp.society.privacy newsgroup and wish to
contribute a message, you should simply post your contribution. As a
moderated newsgroup, attempts to post to the group are normally turned
into eMail to the submission address below.
On the other hand, if you read the digest eMailed to you, you generally
need only use the Reply feature of your mailer to contribute. If you
do so, it is best to modify the "Subject:" line of your mailing.
Contributions generally are acknowledged within 24 hours of
submission. An article is printed if it is relevant to the charter of
the digest and is not redundant or insulting. If selected, it is
printed within two or three days. The moderator reserves the right to
delete extraneous quoted material. He may change the subject line of
an article in order to make it easier for the reader to follow a
discussion. He will not, however, alter or edit or append to the text
except for purely technical reasons.
A library of back issues is available on ftp.cs.uwm.edu [129.89.9.18].
Login as "ftp" with password identifying yourid@yoursite. The archives
are in the directory "pub/comp-privacy".
People with gopher capability can most easily access the library at
gopher.cs.uwm.edu.
Mosaic users will find it at gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu.
Older archives are also held at ftp.pica.army.mil [129.139.160.133].
---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Leonard P. Levine | Moderator of: Computer Privacy Digest
Professor of Computer Science | and comp.society.privacy
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee | Post: comp-privacy@uwm.edu
Box 784, Milwaukee WI 53201 | Information: comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu
| Gopher: gopher.cs.uwm.edu
levine@cs.uwm.edu | Mosaic: gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu
---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V5 #077
******************************
.