 |
Jacques N. Catudal, Ph.D.
- Introduction
- Seeking a Clearer Understanding of “Privacy” and “Confidentiality”
- The Use and Abuse of Electronic Mail and Electronic Bulletin Boards
- Electronic Databases and Privacy
- Conclusions
Seeking a Clearer Understanding of “Privacy” and “Confidentiality”
What assumptions are we making in discussing privacy and
confidentiality in the context of computer technologies, particularly
as computer privacy relates to computer security? We assume that without
a desire for privacy the desire for security makes little sense. On the
other hand, even if we assume a totally secure system, privacy problems
don’t go away. For purposes of getting a better understanding of
privacy and confidentiality, it might be useful to assume that all systems
are completely secure, thereafter determining the nature of the privacy
problems that remain. Of course, we should do this without losing sight
of the fact that in the real world, there can be no such thing as a completely
secure system. So, we also need to determine the nature of privacy problems
when systems are secure to varying degrees.
Of course, it could also be argued that the security issue is besides
the point. Consider Lotus’ Marketplace database: the developers didn’t
have to break into any system to acquire the information, and yet it poses
a serious threat to privacy. Similarly, physicians and nurses have unrestricted
access to patients’ confidential medical records; and problems may
arise if physicians and nurses do not treat this information as confidential.
But what do “privacy” and “confidentiality” mean?
Why, in moral and social arrangements, are privacy and confidentiality
important? Is there a moral right to privacy and, if so, on what philosophical
(or other) basis is it founded? In short, what moral arguments can be
advanced on behalf of the individual’s right to privacy? Similarly,
is there a legal right to privacy and, if so, on what basis is it founded?
A recent poll by the Los Angeles Times found that 71% of Americans believed
they had a right to privacy. What did those polled understand by “privacy”?
We need to define privacy before we protect it. At first glance, what
information is or is not private seems somewhat subjective. For example,
some persons may not want their age or salary divulged, while others seem
not to care whether such information is public or private. This suggests
subjectivism. Further, what information is regarded as appropriately public
or private may be a function of the culture to which one belongs. And
this suggests relativism.
Is privacy a right? If so, then it is the kind of right that may be selectively
exercised or waived. Talking to a doctor about one’s bowel movements
involves waiving one’s right to personal privacy. We waive the right
in such instances because it is in our best interest to do so. This too
suggests that there is an element of relativism involved in our exercising
or waiving the right to privacy. However, it should be noted that in most
such cases, the assumption of confidentiality is an important aspect of
the disclosure.
While examples can be offered suggesting that privacy may be a subjective
matter (again, whether one wants one’s age or salary made public),
such examples cannot address the more fundamental question of whether
it is the case that everyone wants to control the process in which decisions
are made regarding the private or public status of information about one’s
self. Further, we should note that when we decide to divulge information
to a doctor or lawyer, the confidentiality of such information is protected
by law. Here we ought to consider whether it would be a good idea to afford
persons similar legal protections regarding the practices, for instance,
of credit bureaus.
An example may serve to illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of
current credit bureau practices. Consider an individual who, for several
years, has done business with a small independent bank that does not report
to any credit bureau the financial histories of its customers. One day
the individual moves to a larger town and wishes to make a car loan from
a larger bank. He is refused the car loan because the new bank is unable
to determine the individual’s credit history.
There may be a fallacy in thinking that what Americans want most is privacy.
They may in fact want more credit and greater convenience. People do not
want to go back to the days when obtaining a car loan took two weeks and
securing a mortgage took several months. Of course, Americans may also
want to know what information about them is being disseminated. But satisfying
both desires need not be an impossibility.
How can privacy and confidentiality be distinguished? Privacy belongs
to an individual, and holds between the individual and the world. Confidentiality
involves a relationship between two people. In confidential arrangements,
there is an implicit agreement between persons that information won’t
be passed on, perhaps even an implicit promise. Such personal relationships
imply a consent to retain information as well as a measure of trust. In
the research arena, for example, a researcher “promises to hold”
information. In some cases, the breaking of the promise may be held not
only against the individual who breaks the promise, but against the institution
for which the individual works. Confidentiality may be construed as a
tool we use to assure privacy.
We’ve noted that relations exist between the problem of privacy and
the problem of security. It should also be said that relations exist between
privacy and ownership, and between privacy and access. Determining the
nature and extent these relations is imperative if we are to acquire a
clearer and more comprehensive understanding of the nature of privacy
and confidentiality in computerized settings. Studies of problems in isolation
are bound to be inadequate.
Go to: The Use and Abuse of Electronic Mail and Electronic Bulletin Boards
Home > Research Resources > Computing and Privacy > Track Report
HOME | IN
THE NEWS | RESEARCH RESOURCES
TEACHING
RESOURCES | STUDENT RESOURCES
LINKS
| THE GALLERY | STAFF
The Research Center on Computing & Society
at Southern Connecticut
State University
501 Crescent Street • New Haven, CT 06515
Director: (203) 392-6790 •
e-mail: webmaster@computerethics.org
© 2000 – 2007 – Research Center on Computing & Society