Skip to main content
Log in

Are New Technologies the Enemy of Privacy?

Knowledge, Technology & Policy

Abstract

Privacy is one good among other goods and should be weighed as such. The relationship between technology and privacy is best viewed as an arms race between advancements that diminish privacy and those that better protect it, rather than the semi-Luddite view which sees technology as one-sided development enabling those who seek to invade privacy to overrun those who seek to protect it. The merits or defects of particular technologies are not inherent to the technologies, but rather, depend on how they are used and above all, on how closely their use is monitored and accounted for by the parties involved. In order to reassure the public and to ensure accountability and oversight, a civilian review board should be created to monitor the government’s use of surveillance and related technologies. Proper accountability requires multiple layers of oversight, and should not be left solely in the hands of the government.

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

Access this article

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

Notes

  1. “Some concerned about privacy implications of E-Zpass system,” Associated Press, 21 March 2005. LexisNexis Academic, LexisNexis (28 March 2005).

  2. As quoted in “Some concerned,” Associated Press.

  3. As quoted in Wickham, S. K., “E-Z Pass: a primer,” Union Leader, 20 March 2005: A1. LexisNexis Academic, LexisNexis (28 March 2005).

  4. A blueprint for such a civilian review board was sketched with the passage into law of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (Public Law 108-458) on December 17, 2004. Subtitle F, Section 1061 of this Act called for the creation of a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. However, one should note that some critics feel that the Board as approved lacks the necessary independence and power to be an effective mechanism of oversight. Thus, Representatives Tom Udall and Carolyn Maloney brought forward a new bill in March 2005, “The Protection of Civil Liberties Act,” aimed at restructuring this Board. The legislation is currently being reviewed by various committees. For additional information, please see Public Law 108-458, 108th Cong., 2d sess. (17 December, 2004), Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, 48-52; Press Office, “Udall Renews Call for ‘Independent’ Civil Liberties Board,” Congressman Tom Udall. <http://www.tomudall.house.gov/issues2.cfm?id=10264> (3 May, 2005).

  5. Microsoft Office Online, “Sign and send business documents electronically with USPS electronic postmarks,” Microsoft. <http://office.microsoft.com/enus/assistance/HA010971711033.aspx> (29 April 2005).

  6. For more detailed descriptions of the technologies involved in electronic identities, please see the following: Bryan-Low, C., “Identity Thieves Organize,” Wall Street Journal, 7 April 2005: B1. <http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB111282706284700137,00.html> (15 April 2005); Caffrey, A. “USPS Wants to Deliver Fairness to Mutual Funds USPS Wants to Deliver Fairness to Trades,” Boston Globe, 17 May 2004: C1. LexisNexis Academic, LexisNexis (16 April 2005); Glassman, M., “The Electronic Verification Is in the Mail,” New York Times, 22 January 2004: G3. LexisNexis Academic, LexisNexis (16 April 2005); Guth, R. A., “Microsoft Tests Software To Fight Identity Theft on Web,” Wall Street Journal, 28 March, 2005: B1. <http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB111196644239490480,,00.html> (16 April 2005); Harlin, K., “AuthentiDate poised to make its mark online,” Times Union (Albany, NY), 7 August 2002: E1. LexisNexis Academic, LexisNexis (16 April 2005); Kingson, J. A., “Banks Test ID Device for Online Security,” New York Times, 24 December 2004: C1. LexisNexis Academic, LexisNexis (12 April 2005); Microsoft, “Sign and send”; United States Postal Service Media Relations, “Postal Service EPM Digitally Protects Microsoft ® Documents,” United States Postal Service. <http://www.usps.com/communications/news/press/2003/pr03_076.pdf> (16 April 2005).

References

  • Buskin, J. (2000). “Choice and Trust,” Wall Street Journal, (April 17), R34.

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

  • Garfinkle, S. (2000). Database Nation: The Death of Privacy in the 21st Century. New York: O’Reilly.

  • Keefe, P. R. (2005). Chatter: Dispatches from the Secret World of Global Eavesdropping. New York: Random House.

  • O’Harrow, R. (2005). No Place To Hide: Behind the Scenes of Our Emerging Surveillance Society. New York: Free Press.

  • Rosen, J. (2001). “A Watchful State,” New York Times Magazine, (October 7).

  • Solove, D. J. (2004). The Digital Person: Technology and Privacy in the Information Age. New York: New York University Press.

  • Whitaker, R. (2000). The End of Privacy: How Total Surveillance is Becoming a Reality. New York: New Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amitai Etzioni.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Etzioni, A. Are New Technologies the Enemy of Privacy?. Know Techn Pol 20, 115–119 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12130-007-9012-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12130-007-9012-x

Keywords

Navigation