Privacy in the Cyberspace: Threats and Prospects

Reference work entry


This paper deals with the topic of privacy in the cyberspace. It answers the question: What is the situation regarding privacy in the cyberspace and what new threats privacy faces in the cyberspace? It starts with the specification of privacy and analyses the new situation the development of information technologies has put us in. Our environment has changed and privacy is affected. The article continues with the analysis of the threats to privacy emanating from the new environment. The threats include violation of autonomy, lack of freedom and free decisions, insecurity, information asymmetries, blackmailing, vulnerability, physical and mental suffering, financial and other losses, harms to reputation, etc. Further, the paper identifies how privacy is threatened by new technologies and technological inventions. To illustrate possible impacts of information technologies on society, three dystopian visions are presented, namely Orwell’s depiction from the novels Nineteen Eighty-Four, Kafka’s The Trial, and Huxley’s Brave New World. They present three deterrent examples of social reactions to the options provided by the new information technologies. The first one is unfriendly totality, the second one consists in nontransparent society, and the third one in voluntary surrender of privacy. To evaluate current situation, the legal regulation of privacy in EU and USA is summarized.


Privacy Information technology Knowledge democracy Autonomy 


  1. Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, J. (2013). NSA’s Prism surveillance program: How it works and what it can do. theguardian. Accessed 12 Nov 2014.
  3. Boehm, F. (2015). A comparison between US and EU data protection legislation for law enforcement purposes. Accessed 26 June 2016.
  4. Campbell, D. F. J., Carayannis, E. G., & Rehman, S. S. (2015). Quadruple helix structures of quality of democracy in innovation systems: The USA, OECD countries, and EU member countries in global comparison. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 6(3), 467–493. Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. E. (2012). What privacy is for. Harvard Law Review, 126, 1904–1933.Google Scholar
  6. Cooper, J., & James, A. (2009). Challenges for database management in the internet of things. IETE Technical Review, 26(5), 320–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Descheemaeker, E. (2015). The harms of privacy. Edinburgh School of Law research paper no. 2015/27. Accessed 21 June 2016.
  8. Federal Trade Commission (FTC). (2012). Protecting consumer privacy in an Era of Rapid change: Recommendations for business and policymakers. Accessed 26 June 2016.
  9. Floridi, L. (2005). The ontological interpretation of informational privacy. Ethics and Information Technology, 7(4), 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frost & Sullivan. (2015). World’s top global mega trends to 2025 and implications to business, society and cultures. Accessed 18 Dec 2015.
  11. Gartner. (2015). Accessed 18 Dec 2015.
  12. Gavison, R. (1980). Privacy and the limits of law. In F. D. Schoeman (Ed.), Philosophical dimensions of privacy (pp. 346–402). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gelman, R. 2016. Fair information practices: A basic history. Accessed 26 June 2016.
  14. Harper, D. (2001). Online etymology dictionary. Accessed 20 June 2016.
  15. Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (2002). The dialectic of enlightenment. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hunton & Williams. (2016). EU general data protection regulation finally adopted. Accessed 26 June 2016.
  17. Huxley, A. (1932). Brave new world. New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
  18. Kafka, F. (1998). The trial. New York: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
  19. Klitou, D. (2014). Privacy-invading technologies and privacy by design. Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meyers, D. (2014). Big data: A competitive weapon for the enterprise. VizWorld. Accessed 18 Dec 2015.
  21. Moor, J. H. (1990). The ethics of privacy protection. Library Trends, 39(1), 69–82.Google Scholar
  22. Nakashima, E., & Horwitz, S. (2013). Newly declassified documents on phone records program released. The Washington Post. July 31 2013. Accessed 12 Nov 2014.
  23. OECD. (2013). The OECD privacy framework. Accessed 25 June 2016.
  24. Orwell, G. (1949). Nineteen eighty-four. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.Google Scholar
  25. Petinary, D. (2001). Cyberstalking investigation and prevention. Computer Crime Research Center. Accessed 12 June 2016.
  26. Pitofsky, R., Azcuenaga, M. L., Anthon, S. F., Thompson, M. W., & Swindle, O. (1998). Privacy online: A report to Congress, Federal Trade Commission June 1998. Accessed 12 June 2016.
  27. Postman, N. (1985). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  28. Rössler, B. (2004). The value of privacy. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  29. Sennet, R. (1977). The fall of public man. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  30. Solove, D. (2001). Privacy and power: Computer databases and metaphors for information privacy. Stanford Law Review, 53(6), 1393–1462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Solove, D. (2006). A taxonomy of privacy. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154(3), 477–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Statista. (2016). Leading social networks worldwide as of April 2016. Accessed 21 June 2016.
  33. Van de Hoven, J. (2001). Privacy and the varieties of informational wrongdoing. In R. A. Spinello & H. T. Tavani (Eds.), Readings in cyber ethics (pp. 488–500). Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of System AnalysisUniversity of EconomicsPragueCzech Republic

Section editors and affiliations

  • Marios Panagiotis Efthymiopoulos
    • 1
  1. 1.American University in the EmiratesDubaiUAE

Personalised recommendations