COMMUNITARIANISM SOLVENCY 62

ETZIONI’S COMMUNITARIAN PRIVACY CALCULUS SOLVES

ETZIONI'S FOUR CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING PRIVACY REGULATION

RANDOLPH COURT; technology policy analyst, Progressive Policy Institute, The New Democrat, February, 1999 / March, 1999; Pg. 30 TITLE: PUBLIC INTEREST IN PRIVATE MATTERS; The Search for Balance Between Privacy and the Common Good in the Cyber Age // acs-VT2001

In each case, Etzioni uses the same four criteria to decide whether public policy is tilted too far in favor of privacy concerns at the expense of the common good. Under the first criterion, he says there must be "a well-documented and macroscopic threat to the common good, not a merely hypothetical danger," before society should take any steps to curtail privacy. If threats to the common good exist, he first looks to what he calls "second-criterion treatments," which can involve "changes in mores, institutions, or habits of the heart rather than laws or constitutionally protected rights." If those treatments prove inadequate, he suggests "third-criterion interventions," which are often undertaken by government, and generally call for changes in legal doctrine. He stipulates that "to the extent that privacy-curbing measures must be introduced, a communitarian society makes them as minimally intrusive as possible." Finally, under his fourth criterion, Etzioni says "undesirable side effects of needed privacy-diminishing measures" should be mitigated as much as possible.

ETZIONI'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR PRIVACY IS VERY USEFUL

Etzioni's analytical framework is useful. The Progressive Policy Institute, in a paper entitled On-line Privacy Standards: The Case for a Limited Federal Role in a Self-Regulatory Regime, used similar criteria to examine consumer privacy in electronic commerce transactions on the World Wide Web. But instead of asking, "Are there harms to the common good sufficient enough to warrant new inhibitions on individual privacy?" the paper asked, "Are there clear enough harms to consumer privacy in on-line transactions to warrant new privacy protections?"

ETZIONI'S FOUR CRITERIA SHOW THAT NOW IS NOT THE TIME FOR NEW PRIVACY PROTECTIONS

The Progressive Policy Institute concluded that the time has not arrived for new federal privacy legislation to protect non-sensitive consumer information. It isn't clear (under what would be Etzioni's first criterion) that potential harms stemming from lost anonymity outweigh the benefits -- to businesses and consumers alike -- gained from increased economic innovation. The paper recommended that industry self-regulation be given more of a chance to work before any federal legislation is enacted. Finally, PPI concluded that if over time it becomes clear that new privacy legislation is needed, industry self-regulation should still play an integral role in the privacy protection framework. Etzioni reaches a similar conclusion regarding the handling of medical records: "Second- and third-criterion approaches are not stark alternatives: We are not compelled to choose one or the other; they can be combined in various ways."