Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Privacy in the Shadow of Nanotechnology

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One of the more salient concerns about nanotechnology is the fear that it will harm privacy by collecting personal information and distributing it. This sentiment is complicated by the fact that the specific nanotechnologies that might affect privacy are located more in the near future than in the present, so our knowledge of them is more speculative than empirical. To come to terms with these issues, we will need both knowledge of the science – what is realistic and what is not – and a sense of the on-going discourses on privacy and technology that are likely to frame feelings about nanotech.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alivasatos AP (2001) Less is more in medicine. Sci Am 285:66–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bieber F, Brenner C, Lazer D (2006) Finding criminals through DNA of their relatives. Science 312:1315–1316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Biersdorfer J (2006) How to digitally hide (somewhat) in plain sight. N.Y. Times, 12 August 2006, B9

  4. Bilefsky D (2006) Belgians say banking group broke European laws in giving data to U.S. N.Y. Times, 29 September 2006, A8

  5. Brandeis L (1928) Olmstead v. United States. 277 U.S. Reports 438, 478

    Google Scholar 

  6. Caldwell C (2006) After Londonistan. N.Y. Times Magazine, 25 June 2006, 40 ff

  7. Cavoukian A, Tapscott D (1997) Who knows: safeguarding your privacy in a networked world. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chaum D (1992) Achieving electronic privacy. Sci Am 267:76–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cobb M, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 6:395–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Consumer Reports (2006) The new threat to your medical privacy. Consumer Reports 39–42, March 2006

  11. Consumer Reports (2006) Cyber insecurity. Consumer Reports 20–31, September 2006

  12. Copeland L (2007) Red-light cameras bring backlash. USA Today, 15 February 2007, 3A

  13. Foucault M (1977) Discipline and punishment. Vintage, New York

    Google Scholar 

  14. Grunwald A (2005) Nanotechnology—a new field of ethical inquiry? Sci Eng Ethics 11:187–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gwynne P, Heebner G (2006) Pharmacogenomics: the path toward personalized medicine. Science 313:543–547

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hall S (2003) Personalized medicine’s bitter pill. Technol Rev 63–70, February 2003

  17. Hansell S (2006) Advertisers follow the traces left behind by Internet users. N.Y. Times, 15 August 2006, A1, C10

  18. Hoffman J (2006) Sousveillance. N.Y. Times Magazine 74–75, 10 December 2007

  19. Holden C (2007). Nanofinger. Science 315:1773

    Google Scholar 

  20. Landler M (2007) Where little is left outside the camera’s eye. N.Y. Times, 8 July 2007, WK5

  21. LaVan D, Langer R (2001) Implications of nanotechnology in the pharmaceutics and medical fields. In: Roco M, Bainbridge W (eds) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 98–103

    Google Scholar 

  22. Leggett R, Lee-Smith E, Jickells S, Russell D (2007) Intelligent fingerprinting. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 46:4100–4103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Li J (2003) Lessons from the last five years. Scarecrow, Lanham MD

    Google Scholar 

  24. Li M, Tang H, Roukes M (2007) Ultra-sensitive NEMS-based cantilevers for sensing, scanned probe and very high-frequency operations. Nat Nanotechnol 2(2):114–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Liptak A (2006) Criminal records erased by courts live to tell tales. N.Y. Times, 17 October 2006, A1, A18

  26. Lyall S (2006) Cameras catch speeding Britons and lots of grief. N.Y. Times, 27 October 2006, A1, A4

  27. Mamin J (2007) Nanosensors: small strains, big gains. Nat Nanotechnol 2(2):81–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Marusek D (1998) We were out of our minds with joy. In: Dann J, Dozois G (eds) Nanotech. Wiley, New York, pp 203–273

    Google Scholar 

  29. Mehta M (2002) Privacy vs. surveillance: how to avoid a nano-panoptic future. Can Chem News 54(10):31–33

    Google Scholar 

  30. Monahan T (2006) Preface. In: Monahan T (ed) Surveillance and security. Routledge, New York, pp ix–xi

    Google Scholar 

  31. Monahan T (2006) Questioning surveillance and security. In: Monahan T (ed) Surveillance and security. Routledge, New York, pp 1–23

    Google Scholar 

  32. Nagel D, Smith S (2006) Nanotechnology-enabled sensors. In: Foster LE (ed) Nanotechnology: science, innovation and opportunity. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, pp 163–167

    Google Scholar 

  33. Nature Nanotechnology (2007) Beware of Big Brother. Nat Nanotechnol 2(1):1

    Google Scholar 

  34. Norris C (2003) From personal to digital. In: Lyon D (ed) Surveillance as social sorting. Routledge, London, pp 249–281

    Google Scholar 

  35. O’Brien K, Crampton T (2007) European Union warns Google. N.Y. Times, 26 May 2007, B3

  36. Pollack A (2005) F.D.A. issues a guide to gathering genetic data. N.Y. Times, 23 March 2005, C3

  37. Rodrigues R (2006) The implications of high-rate nanomanufacturing on society and personal privacy. Bull Sci Technol Soc 26(1):38–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Roush W (2006) Inside the Spyware scandal. Technol Rev 49–57, May 2006

  39. Sametband M, Shweky I, Banin U, Mandler D, Almog J (2007) Application of nanoparticles for the enhancement of latent fingerprints. Chem Commun 2007:1142–1144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Scheufele D, Lewenstein B (2005) The public and nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 7:659–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Stanton J (2006) Nanotechnology, surveillance, and society. In: Roco M, Bainbridge W (eds) Nanotechnology: societal implications II—individual perspectives. National Science Foundation, Arlington, pp 87–97

    Google Scholar 

  42. Toumey C (2007) Plenty of eyes at the bottom. Nat Nanotechnol 2(4):192–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. van den Hoven J, Vermaas P (2007) Nanotechnology and privacy. J Med Philos 32:283–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Weckert J (2002) Lilliputian computer ethics. Metaphilosophy 33(3):366–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Zeller T (2006) Your life as an open book. N.Y. Times, 12 August 2006, B1, B9

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Duncan Buell, Barbara Costa, Ron Eglash and Cynthia Needham for insightful comments. An anonymous reviewer gave some very good ideas about reorganizing my original draft. The material in this paper is based on work supported by two awards from the National Science Foundation, 0304448 and 0531160. Any opinions expressed in this material are mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. USC NanoCenter, Sumwalt 103, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29208, USA

    Chris Toumey

Authors
  1. Chris Toumey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chris Toumey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Toumey, C. Privacy in the Shadow of Nanotechnology. Nanoethics 1, 211–222 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-007-0023-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-007-0023-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation