NEGATIVE-PRIVACY-GENERAL 104

INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT THAT CONCERNED WITH PRIVACY

INDIVIDUALS DON'T CARE ABOUT PRIVACY PROTECTION

Gregory Shaffer, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School, Winter, 2000; Journal of International Law, 25 Yale J. Int'l L. 1, "Globalization and Social Protection: The Impact of EU and International Rules in the Ratcheting Up of U.S. Privacy Standards," EE2001-hxm lxnx

There are, however, powerful reasons that U.S. legislation has yet to change. These reasons parallel the problems encountered with market mechanisms. Businesses are more likely to lobby legislative representatives [*35] over data privacy issues because they have greater per capita stakes. n143 Moreover, many Americans are somewhat ambivalent about privacy. While privacy advocates cite polls showing that eighty percent of Americans believe they have "lost all control over how companies collect and use their personal information," n144 a majority of Americans nonetheless appear to accept being targeted for marketing by mail based on consumer profiles. n145 In addition, the popular daytime shows hosted by Jerry Springer, Oprah Winfrey, Sally, Ricky, and others feed off self-exposure and voyeurism. n146 Even individuals who desire to protect their own privacy may covet intruding on the privacy of others.

PEOPLE DO NOT ACT TO PROTECT THEIR PRIVACY

Charles Sykes, Senior Fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Institute, THE END OF PRIVACY, 1999, EE2001 -JGM, p.8

The truth is that as much as we deplore the erosion of privacy - and we can be quite eloquent on the subject - many of us accept the violations in the name of a wide range of equally attractive virtues and interests. To paraphrase Jane Austen, privacy, is a value that everyone speaks well of, but no one remembers to do anything about. No one disparages privacy to its face. They simply choose to emphasize the public's right to know, national security, personal safety, conveniences, economic opportunity, politics, ideology, or the pursuit of virtue. Privacy may be all well and good, but the economics of direct marketing are often far more compelling, the hypercompetitive environment of the new media makes reticence seem an unaffordable and archaic luxury, and, anyway, what are you trying to hide? Indeed, attempts to protect privacy are frequently regarded with suspicion. "There is not a crime," thundered Joseph Pulitzer, "there is not a dodge, there is not a trick, there is not a swindle, there is not a vice which does not live by secrecy."

AMERICANS HAVE SIMPLY SURRENDERED TO LOSS OF PRIVACY

Jeffrey Rosen, associate professor at the George Washington University Law School, The New York Times April 30, 2000, SECTION: Section 6; Page 46; TITLE: The Eroded Self // acs-EE2001

It is surprising how recently changes in law and technology have been permitted to undermine sanctuaries of privacy that Americans have long taken for granted. But even more surprising has been our relatively tepid response to the new technologies of exposure.

MOST OF US WILL WELCOME SOME LIMITED PRIVACY LOSS BECAUSE OF THE BENEFITS WHICH WILL ACCRUE

Amitai Etzioni, Prof. George Washington Univ., USA TODAY, April 27, 2000, SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 17A TITLE: Balancing privacy, public good // acs-EE2001

Should you rush to become a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union to protect whatever shreds of privacy are left? Actually, just the opposite may be called for. Many of the new technologies that civil libertarians fight, which do curtail some privacy, are so beneficial that most of us are likely to welcome them.

CONSENT TO USE INFORMATION IS IMPLIED BY OFFERING IT

One might argue in response that the subject of my comments by meeting me has implicitly given me permission to collect information about him. But if consent can be implied, there is no reason that it should not be implied in the commercial context as well. After all, most people know by now that credit card companies, for example, exchange marketing and credit information with other companies, and more and more people are aware that online transactions can be recorded. Implied consent thus cannot save the "information is property" argument.

IF PEOPLE DO NOT EXPECT PRIVACY, THERE IS NO SENSE OF LOSS OF PRIVACY

Liz Stevens, KNIGHT RIDDER NEWS SERVICE Staff writer, The San Diego Union-Tribune, October 6, 1999, SECTION: NEWS Pg. A-1 TITLE: Careful! Your boss may be eavesdropping; Two-thirds of U.S. businesses spy on employees, study finds // acs-EE2001

"If you don't expect (privacy)," Hubbartt (, author of "The New Battle Over Workplace Privacy) adds, "then you're not as upset not to have it."

DESIRE FOR PRIVACY CHANGES CONSTANTLY FOR PEOPLE

KATIE HAFNER The New York Times, November 11, 1999, SECTION: Section G; Page 1; TITLE: Do You Know Who's Watching You? Do You Care? // acs-EE2001

Mr. Rotenberg, of the privacy information center, is skeptical about those findings, arguing that people's desire for privacy may change at different times in their lives, or even in the course of a day. For that reason, he favors legislation that would give individuals control over the use of their personal information.

AMERICANS WANT PRIVACY AND OPENNESS -- BUT END UP GOING FOR OPENNESS OVER PRIVACY

JEFF KUNERTH, The Houston Chronicle, August 22, 1999, SECTION: A; Pg. 16 TITLE: Trust, privacy endangered; Society's advances in technology could threaten way of life // acs-EE2001

Americans have always been a little schizophrenic when it comes to privacy. We respect it - and suspect it. Freedom carries with it an implicit right to privacy, but democracy is based on a lack of secrecy.

Beneath our own expectation of privacy also lies a suspicion of someone else's reticence to reveal: Invasion of privacy is only a problem for someone with something to hide.

If anything, Americans side with openness over secrecy. We have more open-records, freedom-of-information and public-access laws than privacy-protection legislation.