iVERSITY “Public Privacy Course” 수업 관련 자료들

제공하는 참고자료들이 좋아서 내 블로그에도 링크 옮김


Toward an Approach to Privacy in Public: Challenges of Information Technology  (Helen Nissenbaum)
니센바움은, 예전에 프라이버시에 대한다니엘 솔로브 책을 읽을 때 잠깐 접했던 분인데 … … 여기서 만나서 반가웠음.

이 논문 읽다가 몇 가지 메모

p. 6 Despite the absence of dramatic reaction, however, measures of public opinion continue to show the persistent sense that databases of so-called “public” information do violate privacy. (중략) A better alternative, if we are to develop a more meaningful concept of privacy, is to give serious consideration to the concerns expressed in public reactions to Lotus Marketplace and to the opinions from the Nightline

이 논문을 쓸 당시 불유쾌한 기분을 논리적으로 설명할 방법이 떠오르지 않아 사람들이 문제제기를 정확히 하지 못하였음을 알 수 있음.

p.7 Erroneous Assumption 1: There is a realm of public information about persons to which no privacy norms apply. 이 가정은 여전히 현재에도 유효한 잘못된 가정임

In the second place, at times our public sentiments suggest that the idea of private information may not be derivable from ideas of public space. This is demonstrated in cases where a change of determination occurs as a result of a traumatic incident or public discussion. In 1988, for example, after a newspaper published videotape
rental records of then-nominee to the Supreme Court, Robert Bork, the U.S. Congress passed the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988, which reversed the status of video rental records from public to private (see Regan, 1995).

Another contender for a category of information that is “up for grabs” is information found in public records such as birth and death records, real estate records, and court records.

p.8 Previously, state departments of motor vehicles treated drivers’ records as public records-no-holds barred. The Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1993, which was incorporated into the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, changed this by limiting access to these records. It allows drivers to opt out of lists that previously were freely disseminated by departments of motor vehicles. Here, too, is an example of the way concern over privacy has led to a reevaluation of the norms associated with “public record

something considered public in relation to one realm may be private in relation to another, “disclosure of
information to groups, even potentially large groups, might still be considered private provided still larger groups were excluded” (Schoeman, 1984)

The assumption plays an important role in defending a position that databases of nonsensitive information are nonsensitive. On closer scrutiny, however, the assumption, and along with it the many activities it supports, are questionable. When bits of information are aggregated, compiled, and assembled, they can be invasive
of privacy even if when taken individually they are not. (The remarks that follow are merely suggestive. A fuller discussion, which develops when and why aggregations may violate privacy, is beyond the scope of what I am able to cover in this article.) 비정형 데이터와 정형데이터 ~ 빅데이터와 프라이버시 아주아주 오래전에 시작된 이야기들

A single fact about someone takes on a new dimension when it is combined with other facts about the individual, or when it is compared with similar facts about other individuals.

Moreover, portraits are developed not for the purpose of developing friendship or intimate association, but to
manipulate, motivate, and judge; to make decisions that will affect the lives of their subjects in important ways. 돈이 모이는 곳에서 비지니스나 부가적인 작업들이 싹튼다.

니센바움 논문을 읽은 뒤 솔로브 책을 다시 찾아보니 니센바움에 대하여 이렇게 정리해 놓았음 :

privacy = norms of appropriateness, norms of flow or distribution./ contextual integrity



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s