Abstract
3D3C virtual worlds (VW) offer new and engaging methods for conducting many kinds of processes and functions, from education and training, to new product development and customer service. A vast amount of personal information can be recorded, stored, and analyzed in such worlds. This chapter presents a rich account of what today’s VW consist of and the current (though fluid) state of privacy rights in VW in the United States.
First we explain why VW should be considered separate from other technologies. Then privacy rights in the United States are discussed, and how these rights could, or should, apply to VW.
Currently privacy rights of VW users are wholly created and defined by the Terms of Service (TOS) of the VW. We argue that privacy rights need to be approached in two ways, from the VW users working to improve their rights in the TOS and improved government privacy regulation as called for by the VW community. Privacy law, or the right to privacy, is critical at this point in the development of VW. As in the days of the Wild West, the law has been slow to make its way into the realm of VW. In conclusion, critical issues are identified to be addressed in future research projects.
Y’know, watching government regulators trying to keep up with the world is my favorite sport.
(Stevenson, 1992: Snow Crash)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The Supreme Court applied the Fourth Amendment to the individual states in the landmark case Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
- 2.
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
- 3.
In Katz, supra, the Supreme Court found that “the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.” Thus when a person enters a telephone booth, shuts the door, and makes a call, the government cannot record what that person says on the phone without a warrant. Even though the recording device was a public infrastructure phone when Katz shut the phone booth’s door he reasonably expected no one would hear his conversation and it was protected from government intrusion.
- 4.
Randolph v. ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company, 486 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C., 2007) limits prospective liability where a loss or theft of personal data presents no more than a speculative threat of invasion of privacy, identify theft, or fraud. The case, which was resolved on a motion to dismiss, reflects the trend in U.S. case law that data controllers will not necessarily face liability for losing control of personal information if the loss did not cause actual harm.
- 5.
In Griswold, supra, the Court held that the right of privacy within marriage predated the Constitution. The ruling asserted that the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments also protect a right to privacy.
- 6.
A law created by the legislature to protect intellectual property that might not otherwise be protected. See Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edition).
References
Acquisti, A., & Grossklags, J. (2005). Privacy and rationality in individual decision making. IEEE Security and Privacy, 3(1), 26–33.
Bélanger, F., & Crossler, R. E. (2011). Privacy in the digital age: A review of information privacy research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 1017–1042.
Blanke, J. M. (2001). Criminal invasion of privacy: A survey of computer crimes. Jurimetrics Journal, 443, 449–456.
Blitz, M. J. (2009). A first amendment for Second Life: What virtual worlds mean for the law of video games. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law Journal, 11, 779–822.
Brandeis, J. (1928). Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (dissenting).
Chambers, C. (2012). Can you ever regulate the virtual world against economic crime? Journal of International Commerical Law and Technology, 7(4), 339–349.
Chambers-Jones, C. (2013). Virtual world financial crime: Legally flawed. Law and Financial Markets Review, 7(1), 48–56.
Cifrino, C. J. (2014). Virtual property, virtual rights: Why contract law, not property law, must be the governing paradigm in the law of virtual worlds. Boston College Law Review, 55(235), 235–264. http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol55/iss1/7.
Croteau, M. (2013). A quarter of young people have facebook or other social media postings they may later regret, says New FindLaw.com survey. Retrieved from http://company.findlaw.com/press-center/2013/a-quarter-of-young-people-have-facebook-or-other-social-media-pos.html#sthash.49cjPJ1z.dpuf
Deloitte and Touche LLP, & Ponemon Institute LLC. (2007). Enterprise@Risk: 2007 privacy & data protection survey. Retrieved from http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/content/us_risk_s%26P_2007%20Privacy10Dec2007final.pdf
Fairfield, J. (2009). Escape into the Panopticon: Virtual worlds and the surveillance society. The Yale Law Journal Pocket Part, 118, 131–135.
Farahmand, F., Yadav, A., & Spafford, E. H. (2013). Risks and uncertainties in virtual worlds: An educators’ perspective. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 25(2), 49–67.
Finley, K. (2012). Putting an end to the biggest lie on the internet. Tech Crunch. Retrieved September 29, 2013, from http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/13/putting-an-end-to-the-biggest-lie-on-the-internet/
Fourth Amendment. (2013). Legal Information Institute, Cornell University of Law School. Retrieved August 1, 2013, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). 381 U.S. 479, pp. 483–484.
Johnson, B. (2007). Google urges UN to set global internet privacy rules. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/sep/14/news.google
Katz v. United States. (1967). 389 U.S. 347, 358–359.
Kutler, N. (2011). Protecting your online you: A new approach to handling your online persona after death. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 26, 1641–1668.
Lim, H. Y. F. (2008). Who monitors the monitor-virtual world governance and the failure of contract law remedies in virtual worlds. Vanderbilt Journal Entertainment & Technology Law, 11, 1053–1073.
Mayer, J. (2011, May 23). The secret sharer: Is Thomas Drake an enemy of the state? New Yorker, pp. 47–49.
Nelson, J. W. (2011). A virtual property solution: How privacy law can protect the citizens of virtual worlds. Oklahoma City University Law Review, 36, 395–420.
Oliver, J. H. (2002). The similar eye: Proxy life and public space in the MMORPG. In Proceedings of the 2002 Computer Games and Digital Cultures Conference (pp. 171–184).
Prosser, W. L. (1960). Privacy. California Law Review, 48(3), 383–423.
Restatement (Second) of Torts (2000) § 625C.
Roquilly, C. (2011). Control over virtual worlds by game companies: Issues and recommendations. MIS Quarterly, 35(3), 653–672.
Rubenfeld, J. (1989). The right of privacy. Harvard Law Review, 102(4), 737–807.
Schmidt, E., & Cohen, J. (2013). The new digital age: Reshaping the future of people, nations and business. New York: Knopf.
Stevenson, N. (1992). Snow crash. New York: Random House Digital.
Sundquist, M. (2012). Online privacy protection: Protecting privacy, the social contract, and the rule of law in the virtual world. Regent University Law Review, 25(153), 1–29.
Taylor, T. L. (2002). ‘Whose game is this anyway?’ Negotiating corporate ownership in a virtual world. In Proceedings of the 2002 Computer Games and Digital Cultures Conference (pp. 227–242).
The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving life and liberty. Retrieved October 15, 2013, from http://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm
Thierer, A. (2012). Does the internet need a global regulator? Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamthierer/2012/05/06/does-the-internet-need-a-global-regulator/2/
Thierer, A. (2013). Privacy, security, and human dignity in the digital age: The pursuit of privacy in a world where information control is failing. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 36, 409–915.
Toney v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (7th Cir. 2005). 406 F.3d 905, 908-09.
Zarsky, T. (2006). Privacy and data collection in virtual worlds. In J. M. Balkin & B. S. Noveck (Eds.), State of play—Law, games and virtual worlds (pp. 217–223). NY: NYU Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pridmore, J., Overocker, J. (2016). Privacy in Virtual Worlds: A US Perspective to a Global Concern. In: Sivan, Y. (eds) Handbook on 3D3C Platforms. Progress in IS. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22041-3_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22041-3_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-22040-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-22041-3
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)