Correction

Dana, you raise a good point: each of us sees different dangers posed by surveillance and data mining based on the normative frameworks we start with. Personally, for instance, I'm not entirely convinced by the 'it's none of your damn business' libertarian argument for protecting privacy, even though I agree that some degree of privacy is essential to allow people to develop meaningful individuality or 'personhood.' My reservation? In a society as interconnected as ours is, many things that people would rather keep private are my business because they ultimately effect others. Is the con man who would rather suppress his long criminal history, or the compulsive gambler who can hide his addiction from a credit card issuer, thus raising everyone's rates really none of my business? Is there no way to have efficient markets and protect personhood at the same time?

I think we all agree that norms-based defenses of privacy aren't likely to sway those who emphasize values other then personhood and autonomy. My intent in raising the threat of coercive governmental action was two-fold. First, as Ted mentions, the spring semester seems geared towards examining the balance of power between the state and its citizens, while the fall semester LawNetSoc? focused on private actors. But the other reason was to see if we can't come up with a compelling argument for protecting privacy that cuts across traditional ideological divides. I'm not claiming the specter of authoritarianism necessarily does that, though. Perhaps the best we can do is offer a basket of arguments in support of privacy and hope that one or another happens to resonate with the skeptic's moral compass.

-- AndreiVoinigescu - 19 May 2009