NEGATIVE-PRIVACY-SOLVENCY-GENERAL 123

THE INFORMATION AS PROPERTY APPROACH TO PRIVACY WILL FAIL

THE ARGUMENT THAT INFORMATION ABOUT US IS OUR PROPERTY IS FLAWED

Solveig Singleton, director of information studies at the Cato Institute, January 22, 1998 Cato Policy Analysis No. 295 PRIVACY AS CENSORSHIP: A Skeptical View of Proposals to Regulate Privacy in the Private Sector http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-295.html // acs-EE2001

The debate about the creation of new privacy rights must therefore also address property rights.

Opponents of private databases and direct marketing assert that those who collect consumer information steal the information from its rightful owners. One advocate argues that "the value in an individual's name belongs to the individual, celebrity and homeless alike. . . . My name is my property and, without my permission, my life is not for sale,"(65) and urges lawmakers to "forbid any sale of personal information without the permission of consumers. This is easiest done by defining personal information to be the property of consumers."(66)

Others make a similar argument couched in softer terms, that customers should have a "right to choose" whether their information is collected. Under that view, privacy should be an "assignable right."(67) But however one phrases it, the argument that we own information about ourselves has fatal flaws.

INFORMATION ABOUT YOU IS NOT YOUR PROPERTY, OR ANYTHING PEOPLE SAID ABOUT YOU COULD BE REGULATED

Solveig Singleton, director of information studies at the Cato Institute, January 22, 1998 Cato Policy Analysis No. 295 PRIVACY AS CENSORSHIP: A Skeptical View of Proposals to Regulate Privacy in the Private Sector http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-295.html // acs-EE2001

First, the argument that information about oneself is property proves too much. If I have property rights in a book or an apple, then I can prevent others from using it, regardless of whether they intend to use the item for purposes of trade or sale or for any other purpose. If personal information such as a name is property, the implication is that the "owner" must give permission for every use or collection of the name, not just commercial uses.

JOURNALIST EXAMPLE SHOWS THAT THE "CONSENT" MODEL OF INFORMATION USE IS FLAWED -- WHY CAN'T OTHERS DO IT?

Solveig Singleton, director of information studies at the Cato Institute, January 22, 1998 Cato Policy Analysis No. 295 PRIVACY AS CENSORSHIP: A Skeptical View of Proposals to Regulate Privacy in the Private Sector http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-295.html // acs-EE2001

Journalists have no general obligation to get anyone's permission before writing a story about her activities, even though that story and the details of the person's life that they report may be very personal and are sold for commercial value. Journalists have often used information available over computer networks to develop and track important news stories. The newspaper may be penalized if the information violates copyright laws, is defamatory, or violates other common law rights, but these exceptions are very narrow (and themselves often collide with First Amendment rights of free speech).(37) No general "consent" requirement applies.

INFORMATION IS NOT A GOOD OWNED BY THE CONSUMER, AND IS OFTEN GIVEN AWAY

Dr. Janis L. Gogan, professor at Bentley College, InformationWeek, February 8, 1999, Pg. 184, TITLE: Privacy Vs. Protection -- Balancing Privacy With Free Speech And E- Commerce Means Protecting Ourselves Against Impostors // acs-VT2001

Privacy advocates view personal information as a "good" that is "owned" by the consumer, and that should always be controlled by that owner. But many consumers say they don't mind relinquishing control in some situations.

YOU DO NOT NOW OWN INFORMATION ABOUT YOU

The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, September 5, 1999, SECTION: Editorial; Pg. 4H TITLE: EDITORIAL: 'Little brothers' eroding privacy; No secrets: Expanding technology has created a large network of ways to find out nearly anything about anyone. // acs-EE2001

Most Americans have the mistaken assumption that they own the information they generate as a consumer. In a 1997 survey by Georgia Tech, 87 percent of respondents said they believe they should have "total control" over personal records. Unfortunately, that view isn't shared by companies that see your data as just another product to be bought and sold.

INFORMATION AS A COMMODITY DESTROYS 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

The final barrier of privacy - personal consent - is usurped by turning information into a commodity: personal data collected, packaged and resold like corn.

On the last lap of the 20th century, we are well on the way to the place Marx calls "the maximum-security society."