Advertisement

Group Privacy pp 225-237 | Cite as

Conclusion: What Do We Know About Group Privacy?

  • Linnet TaylorEmail author
  • Bart van der Sloot
  • Luciano Floridi
Chapter
Part of the Philosophical Studies Series book series (PSSP, volume 126)

Abstract

This chapter draws together the conclusions of the book as a whole, namely that the available typologies of group privacy, such as collective action lawsuits or the articulation of the rights of political or activist groups, are intuitively insufficient to address the landscape emerging from the new data analytic technologies. The book has demonstrated that there are multiple and often divergent perspectives on what a group is and how it should be addressed with regard to privacy, but this divergence is also an important tool for understanding which elements of the problem can be addressed using current legal and conceptual tools and which will require new approaches. The chapter outlines the authors’ contributions to the typology of group privacy concerns, then identifies the gaps and limitations that arise from a group perspective on privacy, and the conceptual and practical implications of taking the group level into account. Finally, it suggests ways forward for future research, discussion and action.

Keywords

Typology Privacy terminology Social hierarchy Relationalism Discrimination Class action Group rights Data protection 

Bibliography

  1. Bengtsson, L., X. Lu, A. Thorson, R. Garfield, and J. von Schreeb. 2011. Improved response to disasters and outbreaks by tracking population movements with mobile phone network data: A post-earthquake geospatial study in haiti. PLoS Medicine 8(8): e1001083 1–9. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001083
  2. Bettencourt, L.M.A. 2013. The uses of big data in cities (No. SFI working paper: 2013-09-029).Google Scholar
  3. Bloustein, E.J. 1978. Individual and group privacy. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Boyd, D. 2010. Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In Networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites, ed. Z. Papacharissi, 39–58. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Dewey, J. 1927. The public and its problems. Athens: Swallow Press/Ohio University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Gelles, R.J., and M.A. Straus. 1988. Intimate violence: The causes and consequences of abuse in the American family. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  7. Gillespie, T. 2014. The relevance of algorithms. In Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society, ed. T. Gillespie, P. Boczkowski, and K. Foot, 167–194. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Lyon, D. 2014. Surveillance, snowden, and big data: Capacities, consequences, critique. Big Data & Society 1(2). http://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714541861.
  9. Mizuko, I. 2008. Introduction. In Networked publics, ed. K. Varnelis, 1–14. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Mundie, C. 2014, March/April. Privacy pragmatism. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140741/craig-mundie/privacy-pragmatism
  11. Wesolowski, A., N. Eagle, A.J. Tatem, D.L Smith, A.M. Noor, R.W. Snow, and C.O. Buckee 2012. Quantifying the impact of human mobility on malaria. Science:267–270. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1223467

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linnet Taylor
    • 1
    Email author
  • Bart van der Sloot
    • 1
  • Luciano Floridi
    • 2
  1. 1.Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology and SocietyTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Oxford Internet InstituteUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations