Skip to main content

Audience surveillance and the right to anonymous reading in interactive media

Abstract

The proliferation of interactive media has provided corporations with an unprecedented ability to collect information about individuals’ media consumption habits. This ability of corporations is often reinforced by the rhetoric of “consumer sovereignty,” whereby individuals are misled into entrusting a considerable amount of information about their daily activities in exchange for increased convenience. The purpose of this paper is to explain the ways in which the information that individuals reveal to content and technology providers is subject to the scrutiny of external constituencies. More importantly, this paper, through an analysis of legal precedents, will demonstrate that the right to read anonymously is an important corollary of freedom of speech and that the ability of corporations to share information about individuals’ media consumption habits threatens this right.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Agre, P. E. (1994). “Surveillance and Capture: Two Models of Privacy,” The Information Society, 10(2): 101–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahrens, F. (2002). “‘Ranger’ vs. the Movie Pirates; Software Is Studios’ Latest Weapon in a Growing Battle,” Washington Post, 19 July, final edition.

  • American Library Association. (1991). “Policy Concerning Confidentiality of Personally Identifiable Information About Library Users,” 〈http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/pol_user.html〉. (Accessed 18 June 2002.)

  • American Library Association. (1998). In Re Grand Jury Subpoena to Kramerbooks & Afterwards, Inc. 〈http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/Paramount_v_ReplayTV/20020513_ami_brf_oppse_discv_ord.pdf.〉. (Accessed 18 June 2003.)

  • Bell, T. W. (1997–1998). “Fair Use vs. Fared Use: The Impact of Automated Rights Management on Copyright’s Fair Use Doctrine,” North Carolina Law Review, 76: 557–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Board of Education v. Pico. (1982). 457 U.S. 853, 102 S. Ct. 2799, 73 L. Ed. 2d 435.

  • Boling, P. (1996). Privacy and the Politics of Intimate Life. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. E. (1996). “A Right to Read Anonymously: A Closer Look at ‘Copyright Management’ in Cyberspace,” Connecticut Law Review 28: 981–1058.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. E. (2000). “Examined Lives: Informational Privacy and the Subject as Object.” Stanford Law Review, 52(5): 1373–1438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. E. (2003a). “Overcoming Property: (Does Copyright Trump Privacy?).” University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology, and Policy 2003 (1): 101–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. E. (2003b). “DRM and Privacy.” Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 18: 575–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danna, A. and O. H. Gandy. (2002). “All That Glitters is Not Gold: Digging Beneath the Surface of Data Mining,” Journal of Business Ethics, 40(4): 373–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dentrite Int’l, Inc. v. Doe No. 3. (2001). 342 N.J. Super. 134, 775 A.2d 756.

  • Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. et al. v. Federal Communications Commission. (2001). 518 U.S. 727, 116 S. Ct. 2374, 135 L. Ed. 2d 888.

  • Digital Millennium Copyright Act 17 USCS § 101.

  • Donaldson, B. and G. Wright. (2002). “Sales Information Systems: Are They Being Used for More Than Simple Mail Shots?,” Journal of Database Marketing, 9(3): 276–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Electronic Privacy Information Center. (2002). “The USA Patriot Act.” 〈http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot〉. (Accessed 8 May 2003.)

  • Etzioni, A. (1999). The Limits of Privacy. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Froomkin, A. Michael. (2000). “The Death of Privacy,” Stanford Law Review, 52(5): 1461–1543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gandy, O. H. (1996). “Legitimate Business Interest: No End in Sight? An Inquiry into the Status of Privacy in Cyberspace,” University of Chicago Legal Forum 1996: 77–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gandy, O. H. (2001). “Dividing Practices: Segmentation and Targeting in the Emerging Public Sphere.” In Mediated Politics: Communication in the Future of Democracy, eds. W. L. Bennett and R. M. Entman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gandy, O. H. (2002). “Data Mining and Surveillance in the Post-9.11 Environment.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of IAMCR, Barcelona.

  • Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act 12 USCS § 1811.

  • Griswold et al. v. Connecticut. (1965). 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510

  • Hoofnagle, C. (2002). “Panel on Consumer Privacy in the E-Commerce Marketplace.” Paper presented at Practicing Law Institute Third Annual Institute on Privacy Law.

  • Information and Privacy Commissioner. (2002). Privacy and Digital Rights Management (DRM): An Oxymoron? 〈http://www.ipc.on.ca/english/pubpres/papers/drm.htm.〉 (Accessed 15 July 2003.)

  • John Doe v. 2TheMart.com Inc. (2001). 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088.

  • Kang, J. (1998). “Information Privacy in Cyberspace Transactions,” Stanford Law Review, 50: 1193–1294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kretschmer, M., G. M. Klimis, and R. Wallis. (2001). “Music in Electronic Markets,” New Media & Society, 3(4): 417–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lessig, L. (1999). Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litman, J. (2002). “War Stories,” Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 20: 337–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, D. (2001). Surveillance Society: Monitoring Everyday Life. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madsen, W. (2001). “Homeland Security, Homeland Profits.” 〈http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=1108〉. (Accessed 15 July 2003.)

  • Manjoo, F. (2002). “They Know What You’re Watching.” 〈http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,52302,00.html〉. (Accessed 18 June 2003.)

  • Marx, G. (1988). Undercover: Police Surveillance in America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCahill, M. (1998). “Beyond Foucault: Towards a Contemporary Theory of Surveillance.” In Surveillance Closed Circuit Television and Social Control, ed. C. Norris, J. Moran and G. Armstrong, 41–65. Brookfield: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metz, C. (2003). Spyware—It’s Lurking on Your Machine. PC Magazine, 12 April. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,978170,00.asp〉. (Accessed 7 September 2003.)

  • Paramount Pictures Corporation et al. v. ReplayTV, Inc., and Sonicblue Inc. (2002). Application to File Brief of Amici Curiae Civil Liberties and Consumer Groups in Support of Defendants’ Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Discovery Order.

  • Paramount Pictures Corporation et al. v. Replay TV et al. (2002). United States District Court, Central District of California, CV 01-9358 FMC (Ex).

  • Pennington, B. (2001). “New Technology Briefing: Cookies—Are They a Tool for Web Marketers or a Breach of Privacy?,” Interactive Marketing, 2(3): 251–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D. J. 2001. “The Influence of Policy Regimes on the Development and Social Implications of Privacy Enhancing Technologies.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of Telecommunications Policy Research Council, 29th Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy, Alexandria.

  • Recording Industry Association of America, Inc., v. Verizon Internet Services. (2002). Brief of AMICI in Support of Verizon’s Opposition to RIAA’s Motion to Enforce. Civ. No. 1:02MS00323.

  • Recording Industry Association of America, Inc., v. Verizon Internet Services. (2003). 240 F.Supp.2d 24, 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 681.

  • Reid Scofield v. Telecable of Overland Park, Inc. (1992). 973 F.2d 874.

  • Reiman, J. H. (1995). “Driving to the Panopticon: A Philosophical Exploration of the Risks to Privacy Posed by the Highway technology of the Future,” Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. Law Journal, 27: 27–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rein, L. (2003). Commentary: What’s Real and Make-Believe with the RIAA Subpoenas? 〈http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2003/09/11/riaa_supoenas.html〉. (Accessed 15 September 2003.)

  • Schwartz, P. M. (1999). Privacy and Democracy in Cyberspace. Vanderbilt Law Review 52: 1609–1702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sholtz, P. (2000). Economics of personal information exchange. First Monday 5, no. 9. (September). 〈http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_9/sholtz/index.html〉. (Accessed 7 September 2003.)

  • Tattered Cover Inc. v. The City of Thornton. (2002). 44 P.3d 1044: Supreme Court of Colorado.

  • Telecommunications Act 47 USCS § 609

  • Turow, J. (1997). Breaking Up America. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • The United Kingdom Patent Office. (2001). “Benefits of Copyright Protection,” 〈http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/benefits/〉. (Accessed 24 June 2003.)

  • United States, et al. v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. (2000). 529 U.S. 803, 120 S. Ct. 1878, 146 L. Ed. 2d 865.

  • Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. 18 USCS § 1

  • Vora, P., D. Reynolds, I. Dickinson, J. Erickson, and D. Banks. (2002). “Privacy and Digital Rights Management: A Position Paper for the W3C Workshop on Digital Rights Management 2001,” 〈http://www.w3.org/2000/12/drm-ws/pp/hp-poorvi2.html〉. (Accessed 15 June 2003.)

  • Webster, J. G., P. F. Phalen, and W. L. Lawrence. (2000). Rating Analysis: The Theory and Practice of Audience Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westin, A. F. (1967). Privacy and Freedom. New York: Atheneum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zarsky, T. Z. (2002–2003). “‘Mine Your Own Business!’: Making the Case for the Implications of the Data Mining of Personal in the Forum of Public Opinion,” Yale Journal of Law and Technology 5: 1–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaslow, J. (2002). “If TiVo Thinks You Are Gay, Here is How to Set It Straight,” The Wall Street Journal Online, [cited 18 June 2002]. Available at 〈http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1038261936872356908.djm,00.html〉.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

His research interests include privacy, digital rights management systems, and tensions that exist between privacy rights of individuals and intellectual property. An earlier version of this article was presented at the America: Visions and Divisions Conference, Austin 2003. The author would like to thank Oscar H. Gandy and Daniel P. Hillyard for his close reading of this article and helpful suggestions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baruh, L. Audience surveillance and the right to anonymous reading in interactive media. Know Techn Pol 17, 59–73 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02687076

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02687076

Keywords

  • Internet Service Provider
  • Interactive Medium
  • Digital Right Management
  • Copyright Holder
  • Legal Precedent