Privacy-Invading Technologies

  • Demetrius Klitou
Part of the Information Technology and Law Series book series (ITLS, volume 25)


This chapter defines what is meant by Privacy-Invading Technologies (PITs); outlines the increasing threat posed by the growing development and deployment of PITs; briefly explains the overall threat to bodily privacy posed by PITs; explains about the increasing decline of privacy out in public, as a result of surveillance technologies and other PITs; and provides an overview of other examples of PITs that may pose a significant threat to privacy.


Privacy-Invading technologies Public sphere Private sphere Surveillance Bodily privacy 


  1. Aarts E, de Ruyter B (2009) New research perspectives on ambient intelligence. J Ambient Intell Smart Environ I:5–14Google Scholar
  2. Billig M (1995) Banal nationalism. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Blitz MJ (2004) Video surveillance and the constitution of public space: fitting the fourth amendment to a world that tracks image and identity. Tex Law Rev 82(6):1349–1481Google Scholar
  4. Brin D (1999) The transparent society: will technology force us to choose between privacy and freedom? Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Brzezinski Z (1976) Between two ages: America’s role in the technetronic era. Penguin Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Cannataci JA (2010) Squaring the circle of smart surveillance and privacy. In: Proceedings of the 2010 fourth international conference on digital society, IEEE Computer SocietyGoogle Scholar
  7. Cave J, van Oranje C, Schindler R, Ahehabi A, Brutscher PH-B, Robinson N (2009) Trends in connectivity technologies and their socio-economic impacts. Final report of the study: policy options for the ubiquitous internet society, RAND EuropeGoogle Scholar
  8. Dick DM, Aliev F, Kramer J, Wang JC, Hinrichs A, Bertelsen S, Kuperman S, Schuckit M, Nurnberger J Jr, Edenberg HJ, Porjesz B, Begleiter H, Hesselbrock V, Goate A, Bierut L (2007) Association of CHRM2 with IQ: converging evidence for a gene influencing intelligence. Behav Genet 37(2):265–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Epstein J (2009) “Genetic surveillance”—The Bogeyman response to familial DNA investigations. J Law Technol Policy:141–173Google Scholar
  10. Frumkin D, Wasserstrom A, Davidson A, Grafit A (2010) Authentication of forensic DNA samples. Forensic Sci Int: Genet 4:95–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Furedi F (2006) Culture of fear revisited: risk-taking and the morality of low expectation. Continuum, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Gavison R (1980) Privacy and the limits of law. Yale Law J 89(3):421–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldman R (2009) Crime scene DNA could create image of suspect's face (ABC News, 18 February 2009). Accessed 17 Feb 2014
  14. Haggerty KD, Ericson RV (2000) The surveillant assemblage. Br J Sociol 51(4):605–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Howell K (2013) Invasion: 7,500 drones in U.S. airspace within 5 years, FAA warns (Washington Times, 7 November 2013). Accessed 17 Feb 2014
  16. Humphries C (2010) Over the horizon: a Moore’s law for genetics. Technology Review, MIT. Accessed 17 Feb 2014
  17. Lewis P (2010) CCTV in the sky: police plan to use military-style spy drones (The Guardian, 23 January 2010). Accessed 17 Feb 2014
  18. Lyon D (2001) Surveillance society: monitoring everyday life. Open University Press, BuckinghamGoogle Scholar
  19. Masters A, Michael K (2007) Lend me your arms: the use and implications of humancentric RFID. Electron Commer Res Appl 6(1):29–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McGuffin P, Riley B, Plomin R (2001) Genomics and behaviour: toward behaviourial genomics. Science 291:5507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Monmonier MS (2004) Spying with maps: surveillance technologies and the future of privacy. University Of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  22. Murphy D, Cycon J (1999) Applications for mini VTOL UAV for law enforcement. In: Carapezza EM, Law DB (eds) Sensors, C3I, information and training technologies for law enforcement. SPIE Proceedings vol 3577. doi: 10.1117/12.336986
  23. Naselaris T, Prenger RJ, Kay KN, Oliver M, Gallant JL (2009) Bayesian reconstruction of natural images from human brain activity. Neuron 63(6):902–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Omega Foundation (2000) Crowd control technologies, an appraisal of technologies for political control. Final Report to the STOAGoogle Scholar
  25. Pollack A (2009) DNA evidence can be fabricated, scientists show (New York Times, 17 August 2009). Accessed 17 Feb 2014
  26. Pollack A (2008) Dawn of low-price mapping could broaden DNA uses (New York Times, 6 October 2008). Accessed 17 Feb 2014
  27. Radack J (2009) NSA’s cyber overkill (Los Angeles Times, 14 July 2009). Accessed 17 Feb 2014
  28. Russell J (2006) Genetic risk for violent behaviour? (UPI Correspondent, 27 November 2006).
  29. Schneier B (2014) The myth of the ‘transparent society’ (Wired, 3 June 2008). Accessed 17 Feb 2014
  30. Taylor N (2002) State surveillance and the right to privacy. Surveill Soc 1(1):66–85Google Scholar
  31. Thompson C (2008) Clive Thompson on why the next civil rights battle will be over the mind (Wired, 24 March 2008). Accessed 31 July 2013
  32. Travis A (2007) Police may be given power to take DNA samples in the street (The Guardian, 2 August 2007). Accessed 17 Feb 2014
  33. Waterman S (2012) Drones over U.S. get OK by Congress (The Washington Times, 7 February 2012). Accessed 17 Feb 2014
  34. Weiser M (1991) The computer for the twenty-first century. Sci Am 256(3):94–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Welsh JM, Phillips GD, Hill R (2010) The Francis Ford Coppola encyclopedia. Scarecrow Press, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  36. Wood DM (2006) (ed) A report on the surveillance societyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press and the author(s) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations