Skip to main content

Seven Types of Privacy

Abstract

As technologies to develop, conceptualisations of privacy have developed alongside them, from a “right to be let alone” to attempts to capture the complexity of privacy issues within frameworks that highlight the legal, social-psychological, economic or political concerns that technologies present. However, this reactive highlighting of concerns or intrusions does not provide an adequate framework though which to understand the ways in which privacy should be proactively protected. Rights to privacy, such as those enshrined in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, require a forward-looking privacy framework that positively outlines the parameters of privacy in order to prevent intrusions, infringements and problems. This paper makes a contribution to a forward-looking privacy framework by examining the privacy impacts of six new and emerging technologies. It analyses the privacy issues that each of these technologies present and argues that there are seven different types of privacy. We also use this case study information to suggest that an imprecise conceptualisation of privacy may be necessary to maintain a fluidity that enables new dimensions of privacy to be identified, understood and addressed in order to effectively respond to rapid technological evolution.

Keywords

  • Personal Data
  • Data Protection
  • Body Scanner
  • Unmanned Aircraft System
  • Human Enhancement

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-5170-5_1
  • Chapter length: 30 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   179.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-94-007-5170-5
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Notes

  1. 1.

    Samuel Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy,” Harvard Law Review 4 (1890).

  2. 2.

    Roger Clarke, “Introduction to Dataveillance and Information Privacy, and Definitions of Terms” (Xamax Consultancy, Aug 1997). http://www.rogerclarke.com/DV/Intro.html. Clarke identified these four categories even earlier, in his PhD Supplication in 1995. See http://www.rogerclarke.com/DV/PhD.html. He has variously referred to the four categories as categories, interests, dimensions, components and aspects. We use the term “types,” which Gary T. Marx also uses. See Gary T. Marx, “Privacy is not quite like the weather” in Privacy Impact Assessment, edited by David Wright and Paul De Hert (Dordrecht: Springer, 2012).

  3. 3.

    Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Privacy Impact Assessment Guide, Sydney, NSW, August 2006, revised May 2010, p. iii. Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), Privacy Impact Assessment Handbook, Wilmslow, Cheshire, UK, Version 2.0, June 2009, p. 14.

  4. 4.

    See Daniel Solove, Understanding Privacy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008).

  5. 5.

    David Lyon, Surveillance after September 11 (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003).

  6. 6.

    Serge Gutwirth, Privacy and the information age (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002), 30.

  7. 7.

    Colin J. Bennett, Regulating Privacy: Data Protection and Public Policy in Europe and the United States (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 1992).

  8. 8.

    James Q. Whitman, “The Two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity Versus Liberty,” The Yale Law Journal 113 (2004): 1153–54.

  9. 9.

    Solove, 12. Solove believes that privacy is not one thing, that there is no common dominator. We can agree with that – in so far as we have identified seven types of privacy. However, we believe that there is a common denominator and that common denominator is the ill-defined notion of privacy itself. While we agree with Gutwirth, Priscilla Regan and others who say that privacy has a social value, privacy at its core relates to the integrity and autonomy of the individual, so that when privacy is compromised – no matter what type of privacy – the individual is being harmed in some way.

  10. 10.

    Debbie V. S. Kaspar, “The Evolution (or Devolution) of Privacy,” Sociological Forum 20 (2005): 72.

  11. 11.

    Helen Nissenbaum, “Privacy as Contextual Integrity,” Washington Law Review 79:1 (2004), 101–139.

  12. 12.

    Benjamin J. Goold, “Surveillance and the Political Value of Privacy,” Amsterdam Law Forum 1 (2009): 5.

  13. 13.

    Christian Fuchs, “Towards an alternative concept of privacy,” Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 9 (2011): 232.

  14. 14.

    Catharine A. MacKinnon, Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1987).

  15. 15.

    The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that “society has come to realize that privacy is at the heart of liberty in a modern state.” R. v. Dyment (188), 55 D.L.R. (4th) 503 at 513 (S.C.C.). On the social value of privacy, see, for example, Priscilla M. Regan, Legislating Privacy: Technology, Social Values, and Public Policy, (Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1995), 220–231; Alan Westin, “Social and Political Dimensions of Privacy,” Journal of Social Issues, 59: 2 (2003), 431–453; Valerie Steeves, “Reclaiming the social value of privacy,” in Ian Kerr, Valerie Steeves and Carole Lucock (eds.), Lessons from the Identity Trail: Anonymity, Privacy and Identity in a Networked Society (Oxford University Press, 2009).

  16. 16.

    Gutwirth, Privacy and the information age, 30.

  17. 17.

    Solove, Understanding Privacy, 9.

  18. 18.

    Daniel Solve, “‘I’ve Got Nothing to Hide’ and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy,” San Diego Law Review 44 (2007): 758.

  19. 19.

    Kaspar, Evolution of Privacy, 76.

  20. 20.

    Ibid.

  21. 21.

    Roger Clarke, “Introduction to Dataveillance and Information Privacy, and Definitions of Terms,” Xamax Consultancy, Aug 1997. http://www.rogerclarke.com/DV/Intro.html.

  22. 22.

    These seven types of privacy were first elaborated in an annex prepared for the PRESCIENT D1 report, available at http://www.prescient-project.eu/prescient/inhalte/download/PRESCIENT-D1---final.pdf.

  23. 23.

    Emilio Mordini, “Whole Body Imaging at airport checkpoints: the ethical and political context,” in Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields, ed. René von Schomberg (Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2011).

  24. 24.

    Clarke, “Introduction to Dataveillance”.

  25. 25.

    Helen Nissenbaum, Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy and the Integrity of Social Life (Stanford CA: Stanford University Press, 2010), 82.

  26. 26.

    Clarke, “Introduction to Dataveillance”.

  27. 27.

    Goold, “Surveillance and the Political Value of Privacy”.

  28. 28.

    Dara Hallinan, Philip Schütz, and Michael Friedewald, “Neurodata-Based Devices and Data Protection” (paper presented at the 5th Bi-annual Surveillance and Society Conference, Sheffield, April 3–4, 2012).

  29. 29.

    www.piafproject.eu.

  30. 30.

    www.prescient-project.eu.

  31. 31.

    www.sapientproject.eu.

  32. 32.

    Silvia Venier, “Global Mobility and Security,” Biometric Technology Today 5 (2009).

  33. 33.

    European Commission, Consultation: The impact of the use of body scanners in the field of aviation security on human rights, privacy, personal dignity, health and data protection, Brussels, 19 February 2009.

  34. 34.

    Demetrius Klitou, “Backscatter body scanners – A strip search by other means,” Computer Law & Security Report 24 (2008): 317.

  35. 35.

    Electronic Privacy Information Center, “Transportation Agency’s Plan to X-Ray Travelers Should Be Stripped of Funding,” last modified June 2005, http://epic.org/privacy/surveillance/spotlight/0605/.

  36. 36.

    American Civil Liberties Union, “The ACLU’s view on body scanners,” last modified 15 March 2002, http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/body-scanners.

  37. 37.

    Department for Transport, Impact Assessment on the use of security scanners at UK airports, last modified 29 March 2001. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/2010-23/.

  38. 38.

    Ki Mae Heussner, “Air Security: Could Technology Have Stopped Christmas Attack?,” ABC News, 29 December 2009. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/AheadoftheCurve/air%2Dsecurity%2Dtechnology%2Dstopped%2Dxmas%2Dattack/story%3Fid=9436877.

  39. 39.

    Kim Zetter, “Airport Scanners Can Store, Transmit Images,” Wired News, 11 January 2010. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/airport-scanners/.

  40. 40.

    Philip Rucker, “US airports say seeing is believing as passengers face body-scan drill,” Sydney Morning Herald 5 January 2010. http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/us-airports-say-seeing-is-believing-as-passengers-face-bodyscan-drill-20100104-lq6o.html.

  41. 41.

    EPIC, “Transportation Agency’s Plan to X-Ray Travelers Should Be Stripped of Funding”.

  42. 42.

    Privacy International, “PI statement on proposed deployments of body scanners in airports,” last modified 31 December 2009. https://www.privacyinternational.org/article/pi-statement-proposed-deployments-body-scanners-airports.

  43. 43.

    European Economic and Social Committee, Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Use of Security Scanners at EU airports, COM(2010) 311 final, Brussels, 16 February 2011, 4.

  44. 44.

    Even if the images are anonymised, this would not legitimate the circulation of such images. Circulation of such images without the authorisation of the person whose image was captured would be either illegal or morally repugnant or both.

  45. 45.

    The Guardian, “Oyster data use rises in crime clampdown,” 13 March 2006. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/mar/13/news.freedomofinformation and Octopus Holdings Limited, “Customer Data Protection”.

  46. 46.

    Marc Langheinrich, “A survey of RFID privacy approaches,” Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 13 (2009): 414.

  47. 47.

    Faraday cages are a metallic shielding embedded in the passport cover and designed to protect it from electronic eavesdropping.

  48. 48.

    Faraday cages do not prevent eavesdropping on legitimate conversations between readers and tags, and basic access codes could enable counterfeiting, since a forger could splice together a valid electronic signature with false identity information and biometric components.

  49. 49.

    Raphael Gellert and Serge Gutwirth, “Privacy, data protection and policy issues in RFID enabled e-passports,” in Privacy, data protection and ethical issues in new and emerging technologies: Five case studies, eds. Rachel Finn and David Wright (PRESCIENT consortium, 25 November 2011).

  50. 50.

    Marc van Lieshout, et al., RFID Technologies: Emerging Issues, Challenges and Policy Options, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2007, 197.

  51. 51.

    Lara Srivastava, “Radio frequency identification: ubiquity for humanity,” info 9 (2007).

  52. 52.

    Langheinrich, “RFID privacy approaches”.

  53. 53.

    A. Juels, D. Molnar and D. Wagner, “Security and Privacy Issues in E-passports,” in Proceedings of IEEE/Create-net SecureComm 2005, (Los Angeles CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 2005), 79.

  54. 54.

    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “RFID Guidance and Reports,” OECD Digital Economy Papers 152 (Paris: OECD publishing, 2008), 42.

  55. 55.

    Steve Bloomfield, “How an Oyster Card can Ruin your Marriage,” The Independent on Sunday, 19 February 2006. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/how-an-oyster-card-could-ruin-your-marriage-467077.html.

  56. 56.

    Octopus Holdings Limited, “Customer Data Protection,” 2009.

  57. 57.

    Rachel L. Finn and David Wright, “Unmanned aircraft systems: Surveillance, ethics and privacy in civil applications,” Computer Law & Security Review 28:2 (2012).

  58. 58.

    Paul McBride, “Beyond Orwell: The Application of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in Domestic Surveillance Operations,” Journal of Air Law and Commerce 74 (2009): 659.

  59. 59.

    European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), COM(2012) 11 final, Brussels, 25 January 2012.

  60. 60.

    McBride, “Beyond Orwell,” 661.

  61. 61.

    Nature Biotechnology, “DNA confidential,” Editorial, 27 (2009): 777.

  62. 62.

    Piret Kukk, Bärbel Hüsing and Michael Friedewald, “Privacy, data protection and policy issues in next generation DNA sequencing technologies,” Privacy, data protection and ethical issues in new and emerging technologies: Five case studies, eds. Rachel Finn and David Wright (PRESCIENT consortium, 25 November 2011).

  63. 63.

    Dorothy Nelkin and Lori Andrews, “DNA identification and surveillance creep,” Sociology of Health & Illness 21 (1999).

  64. 64.

    Gary T. Marx, “Soft Surveillance: The Growth of Mandatory Volunteerism in Collecting Personal Information – ‘Hey Buddy Can You Spare a DNA?’,” in Surveillance and Security: Technological Politics and Power in Everyday Life, ed. T. Monahan (London: Routledge, 2006).

  65. 65.

    Kukk et al., “Next-generation DNA sequencing”.

  66. 66.

    L. Curren, et al., “Identifiability, genomics and UK data protection law,” European Journal of Health Law 17 (2010).

  67. 67.

    J.E. Lunshof et al., “From genetic privacy to open consent,” Nature Reviews Genetics 9 (2008).

  68. 68.

    Wikipedia defines Low Copy Number (LCN) as a DNA profiling technique developed by the Forensic Science Service (FSS) and in use in some countries since 1999.

  69. 69.

    Rebecca Fowler, “Coded Revelations: DNA the second revolution,” The Observer, 27 April 2003.

  70. 70.

    Alan Hall, “Woman serial killer was a just phantom, German police admit,” The Telegraph, 26 March 2009. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/5056339/Woman-serial-killer-was-a-just-phantom-German-police-admit.html.

  71. 71.

    Dustin Hays and DNA Policy Centre, “DNA, Forensics, and the Law,” last modified 2008.http://www.dnapolicy.org/policy.issue.php%3Faction=detail%26;issuebrief_id=42.

  72. 72.

    Philip Schütz and Michael Friedewald, “Technologies for Human Enhancement and their impact on privacy,” in Privacy, data protection and ethical issues in new and emerging technologies: Five case studies, eds. Rachel Finn and David Wright (PRESCIENT consortium, 25 November 2011).

  73. 73.

    Anton Nijholt, “BCI for Games: A ‘State of the Art’ Survey,” in Entertainment Computing – ICEC 2008, eds. Scott M. Stevens and Shirley J. Saldamarco (Berlin: Springer, 2009), 225.

  74. 74.

    Schütz and Friedewald, “Technologies for Human Enhancement and their impact on privacy”.

  75. 75.

    Dennis J. McFarland and Jonathan R. Wolpaw, “Brain-computer interfaces for communication and control,” Communications of the ACM 54 (2011): 63.

  76. 76.

    Adam Kepecs, “Neuroscience: My brain made me do it,” Nature 473 (2011).

  77. 77.

    Ira van Keulen and Mirjam Schuijff, “Engineering of The Brain: Neuromodulation and Regulation,” in Making Perfect Life: Bioengineering in the 21 st Century, eds. Rinie van Est and Dirk Stemerding (Brussels: European Technology Assessment Group, June 2011).

  78. 78.

    Ian Sample, “Mind-reading program translates brain activity into words,” The Guardian, 31 January 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jan/31/mind-reading-program-brain-words.

  79. 79.

    Medical Device Security Center, “Medical Device Security Center,” last modified 2011. http://secure-medicine.org/.

  80. 80.

    Martha J. Farah, “Neuroethics: The practical and the philosophical,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9 (2005): 34.

  81. 81.

    Silvia Venier and Emilio Mordini, “Second-generation biometrics,” in Privacy, data protection and ethical issues in new and emerging technologies: Five case studies, eds. Rachel Finn and David Wright (PRESCIENT consortium, 25 November 2011).

  82. 82.

    Venier and Mordini, “Second-generation biometrics”.

  83. 83.

    Ibid.

  84. 84.

    Harvard Magazine, “Where Decisionmaking is Measured,” 12 December 2008. http://harvardmagazine.com/breaking-news/where-decisionmaking-is-measured.

  85. 85.

    As mentioned early on in this article, Clarke labelled privacy of personal data and privacy of personal communications as “information privacy”.

  86. 86.

    We do not mean to suggest that the newer the technology, the broader the risks to these different dimensions of privacy. Each new technology must be assessed to determine whether it has impacts on privacy and, if so, which types of privacy. It does not follow that new technologies necessarily pose greater risks to privacy than older technologies, but it is certainly true, as we have demonstrated, that some new technologies have exposed types of privacy not heretofore considered and that as technologies become more complex, the more likely it is that the risks will also be more complex.

  87. 87.

    We draw support in this conclusion from Gutwirth, Privacy and the information age pp. 33–34, who discusses the undesirability of defining privacy from a legal perspective.

  88. 88.

    Privacy should not be narrowly defined, nor should information privacy (of communication and personal data protection) be regarded as all there is to privacy. Clarke speaks of a “serious debasement of the term ‘privacy’ [which] has occurred in the case of U.S. and Australian statutes that have equated it with the highly restrictive idea of ‘data protection’. That notion derives from the ‘fair information practices’ movement that has been used by corporations and governments since the late 1960s to avoid meaningful regulation.” Roger Clarke, “What’s ‘privacy’?,” Xamax Consultancy, 2006. http://www.rogerclarke.com/DV/Privacy.html.

References

  • American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU’s view on body scanners. http://www.aclu.org/technology%2Dand%2Dliberty/body%2Dscanners. Last modified 15 Mar 2002.

  • Bennett, Colin J. 1992. Regulating privacy: Data protection and public policy in Europe and the United States. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloomfield, Steve. 2006. How an oyster card can ruin your marriage. The Independent on Sunday, 19 Feb 2006. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/how-an-oyster-card-could-ruin-your-marriage-467077.html.

  • Clarke, Roger. 2006. What’s ‘Privacy’?. Australian Law Reform Commission Workshop. http://www.rogerclarke.com/DV/Privacy.html. 28 July 2006.

  • Clarke, Roger. Aug 1997. Introduction to dataveillance and information privacy, and definitions of terms. Canberra: Xamax Consultancy. http://www.rogerclarke.com/DV/Intro.html.

  • Curren, L., P. Boddington, H. Gowans, N. Hawkins, N. Kanellopoulou, J. Kaye, and K. Melham. 2010. Identifiability, genomics and UK data protection law. European Journal of Health Law 17: 329–344.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Department for Transport. 2001. Impact assessment on the use of security scanners at UK airports. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/%2B%2F http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/2010%2D23%2F. 29 Mar 2001.

  • Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). Transportation agency’s plan to X-ray travelers should be stripped of funding. Last modified June 2005. http://epic.org/privacy/surveillance/spotlight/0605.

  • European Commission. Consultation: The impact of the use of body scanners in the field of aviation security on human rights, privacy, personal dignity, health and data protection. Brussels, 19 Feb 2009. http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/consultations/2009_02_19_body_scanners_en.htm.

  • European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), COM(2012) 11 final, Brussels, 25 January 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Economic and Social Committee. 2010. Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Use of Security Scanners at EU airports. COM 311 final, Brussels, 16 Feb 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farah, Martha J. 2005. Neuroethics: The practical and the philosophical. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9: 34–40.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Finn, Rachel L., and David Wright. 2012. Unmanned aircraft systems: Surveillance, ethics and privacy in civil applications. Computer Law & Security Review 28(2): 184–194.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, Rebecca. 2003. Coded revelations: DNA the second revolution. The Observer, 27 Apr 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, Christian. 2011. Towards an alternative concept of privacy. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 9: 220–237.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gellert Raphael, and Serge Gutwirth. 2011. Privacy, data protection and policy issues in RFID enabled e-passports. In Privacy, data protection and ethical issues in new and emerging technologies: Five case studies PRESCIENT Deliverable 2, ed. Rachel Finn and David Wright, 31–59. Report prepared by the PRESCIENT consortium for the European Commission’s Directorate-General Research, 25 Nov 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goold, Benjamin J. 2009. Surveillance and the political value of privacy. Amsterdam Law Forum 1: 3–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Guardian, Oyster data use rises in crime clampdown. 13 Mar 2006. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/mar/13/news.freedomofinformation.

  • Gutwirth, Serge. 2002. Privacy and the information age. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, Alan. 2009. Woman serial killer was just a phantom: German police admit. The Telegraph, 26 Mar 2009. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/5056339/Woman-serial-killer-was-a-just-phantom-German-police-admit.html.

  • Hallinan, Dara, Philip Schütz, and Michael Friedewald, “Neurodata-Based Devices and Data Protection”. Paper presented at the 5th Bi-annual Surveillance and Society Conference, Sheffield, 3–4 April 2012

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvard Magazine, Where decisionmaking is measured. 12 Dec 2008. http://harvardmagazine.com/breaking-news/where-decisionmaking-is-measured.

  • Hays, Dustin, and DNA Policy Centre. 2007. DNA, Forensics, and the Law. Last modified 2008. http://www.dnapolicy.org/policy.issue.php%3Faction=detail%26;issuebrief_id=42.

  • Heussner, Ki Mae. 2009. Air security: Could technology have stopped Christmas attack? ABC News, 29 Dec 2009. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/AheadoftheCurve/air-security-technology-stopped-xmas-attack/story?id=9436877.

  • Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), Privacy Impact Assessment Handbook, Wilmslow, Cheshire, UK, Version 2.0, June 2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Juels, A., D. Molnar, and D. Wagner. 2005. Security and privacy issues in E-passports. In Proceedings of IEEE/Create-net SecureComm 2005, 74–88. Los Angeles: IEEE Computer Society Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaspar, Debbie V.S. 2005. The evolution (or devolution) of privacy. Sociological Forum 20: 69–92.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kepecs, Adam. 2011. Neuroscience: My brain made me do it. Nature 473: 280–281. Accessed 2 Mar 2012. http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/473280a.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Klitou, Demetrius. 2008. Backscatter body scanners – A strip search by other means. Computer Law & Security Report 24: 316–325.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kukk, Piret, Bärbel Hüsing and Michael Friedewald. 2011. Privacy, data protection and policy issues in next generation DNA sequencing technologies. In Privacy, data protection and ethical issues in new and emerging technologies: Five case studies PRESCIENT Deliverable 2, ed. Rachel Finn and David Wright, 143–174. Report prepared by the PRESCIENT consortium for the European Commission’s Directorate-General Research, 25 Nov 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langheinrich, Marc. 2009. A survey of RFID privacy approaches. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 13: 413–421.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lunshof, J.E., R. Chadwick, D.B. Vorhaus, and G.M. Church. 2008. From genetic privacy to open consent. Nature Reviews Genetics 9: 406–411.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, David. 2003. Surveillance after September 11. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, Catharine A. 1987. Feminism unmodified: Discourses on life and law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, Gary T. 2006. Soft surveillance: The growth of mandatory volunteerism in collecting personal information – ‘Hey buddy can you spare a DNA?’. In Surveillance and security: Technological politics and power in everyday life, ed. Torin Monahan, 37–56. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, Gary T. 2012. Privacy is not quite like the weather. In Privacy impact assessment, ed. David Wright and Paul De Hert. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McBride, Paul. 2009. Beyond Orwell: The application of unmanned aircraft systems in domestic surveillance operations. Journal of Air Law and Commerce 74: 627–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFarland, Dennis J., and Jonathan R. Wolpaw. 2011. Brain-computer interfaces for communication and control. Communications of the ACM 54: 60–66.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Medical Device Security Center. 2011. Medical Device Security Center. http://secure-medicine.org/.

  • Mordini, Emilio. 2011. Whole body imaging at airport checkpoints: The ethical and political context. In Towards responsible research and innovation in the information and communication technologies and security technologies fields, ed. René von Schomberg, 165–209. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nature Biotechnology. 2009. DNA confidential. Editorial 27: 777.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelkin, Dorothy, and Lori Andrews. 1999. DNA identification and surveillance creep. Sociology of Health & Illness 21: 689–706.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Nijholt, Anton. 2009. BCI for games: A ‘State of the Art’ survey. In Entertainment computing – ICEC 2008, ed. Scott M. Stevens and Shirley J. Saldamarco, 225–228. Berlin: Springer.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Nissenbaum, Helen. 2004. Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review 79(1): 101–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nissenbaum, Helen. 2010. Privacy in context: Technology, policy and the integrity of social life. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Octopus Holdings Limited. Customer Data Protection. Last updated 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Privacy Impact Assessment Guide, Sydney, NSW, August 2006, revised May 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2008. RFID guidance and reports. OECD Digital Economy Papers, 152. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Privacy International. 2009. PI statement on proposed deployments of body scanners in airports. Last updated 31 Dec 2009. https://www.privacyinternational.org/article/pi-statement-proposed-deployments-body-scanners-airports.

  • Regan, Priscilla M. 1995. Legislating privacy: Technology, social values, and public policy, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rucker, Philip. 2010. US airports say seeing is believing as passengers face body-scan drill. Sydney Morning Herald, 5 Jan 2010. http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/us-airports-say-seeing-is-believing-as-passengers-face-bodyscan-drill-20100104-lq6o.html.

  • Sample, Ian. 2012. Mind-reading program translates brain activity into words. The Guardian, 31 Jan 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jan/31/mind-reading-program-brain-words.

  • Schütz, Philip, and Michael Friedewald. 2011. Technologies for human enhancement and their impact on privacy. In Privacy, data protection and ethical issues in new and emerging technologies: Five case studies PRESCIENT Deliverable 2, ed. Rachel Finn and David Wright, 175–198. Report prepared by the PRESCIENT consortium for the European Commission’s Directorate-General Research, 25 Nov 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solove, Daniel J. 2008. Understanding privacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solve, Daniel. 2007. ‘I’ve got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy. San Diego Law Review 44: 745–772.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava, Lara. 2007. Radio frequency identification: Ubiquity for humanity. Info 9: 4–14.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Steeves, Valerie. 2009. Reclaiming the social value of privacy. In Lessons from the identity trail: Anonymity, privacy and identity in a networked society, ed. Ian Kerr, Valerie Steeves, and Carole Lucock. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Supreme Court of Canada, R. v. Dyment (188), 55 D.L.R. (4th) 503 at 513 (S.C.C.).

    Google Scholar 

  • van Keulen, Ira, and Mirjam Schuijff. 2011. Engineering of the brain: Neuromodulation and regulation. In Making perfect life: Bioengineering in the 21st century, ed. Rinie van Est and Dirk Stemerding, 68–116. European Technology Assessment Group, June 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Lieshout, Marc, Luigi Grossi, Graziella Spinelli, Sandra Helmus, Linda Kool, Leo Pennings, Roel Stap, Thijs Veugen, Bram van der Waaij, and Claudio Borean. 2007. RFID technologies: Emerging issues, challenges and policy options. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venier, Silvia. 2010. Global mobility and security. Biometric Technology Today 5: 7–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venier, Silvia and Emilio Mordini. 2011. Second-generation biometrics. In Privacy, data protection and ethical issues in new and emerging technologies: Five case studies PRESCIENT Deliverable 2, ed. Rachel Finn and David Wright, 111–142. Report prepared by the PRESCIENT consortium for the European Commission’s Directorate-General Research, 25 Nov 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, Samuel, and Louis D. Brandeis. 1890. The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review 4: 193–220.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Westin, Alan. 2003. Social and political dimensions of privacy. Journal of Social Issues 59(2): 431–453.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Whitman, James Q. 2004. The two western cultures of privacy: Dignity versus liberty. The Yale Law Journal 113: 1151–1221.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Zetter, Kim. 2010. Airport scanners can store, transmit images. Wired News, 11 Jan 2010. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/airport-scanners/.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachel L. Finn .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Finn, R.L., Wright, D., Friedewald, M. (2013). Seven Types of Privacy. In: Gutwirth, S., Leenes, R., de Hert, P., Poullet, Y. (eds) European Data Protection: Coming of Age. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5170-5_1

Download citation