A critical contribution to theoretical foundations of privacy studies
| Date | 17 May 2011 |
| Published date | 17 May 2011 |
| Pages | 83-101 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/14779961111148613 |
| Author | Thomas Allmer |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management |
A critical contribution
to theoretical foundations
of privacy studies
Thomas Allmer
UTI – Unified Theory of Information Research Group,
University of Salzburg, Vienna, Austria
Abstract
Purpose – Although there is much public talk about privacy, it seems that there is no definite answer;
rather, ambiguous concepts of what privacy is and what indeed privacy in peril is. The overall aim of this
paper is to clarify how privacy is defined in the academic literature, what the different concepts of
privacy have in common, what distinguish them from one another, and what advantages and
disadvantages such definitions have in order to clarify if there is a gap in the existing literature.
Design/methodology/approach – This contribution constructs theoretically founded typologies in
order to systemize the existing literature of privacy studies and to analyse examples of privacy (threats).
Therefore, it mainly is a theoretical approach combined with illustrative examples.
Findings – This paper contains a systematic discussion of the state of the art of privacy studies by
establishing a typology of existing privacy definitions and discussing commonalties and differences.
In this paper, it is argued that the existing literature is insufficient for studying privacy. Therefore,
a critical contribution to privacy studies is needed.
Originality/value – A critical contribution to privacy studies avoids pitfalls of the existing literature
and strives for the development of theoretical and empirical research methods in order to focus on
privacy in the context of domination, asymmetrical power relations, resource control, social struggles,
and exploitation.
Keywords Privacy, Information society, Surveillance,Critical theory, Culture (sociology)
Paper type Conceptual paper
1. Introduction
There is much public talk about privacy. The following collected news clips indicate this
development:
EU Seeks Tougher Online Code In Bid to Safeguard Private Data. The European Union
proposed new privacy rights for citizens sharing personal data with web sites such as
Facebook and Google (The Wall Street Journal, November 5, 2010).
Facebook tool shows location. Millions of Facebook users have been warned to check their
privacy settings after the social network launched a tool to let friends reveal your location
(The Sun, September 17, 2010).
Google accepts privacy leaks. Google Inc. admitted for the first time its Street View cars around
the world accidentally collected more personal data than previously disclosed – including
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1477-996X.htm
The research presented in this paper was conducted in the project “Social Networking Sites in the
Surveillance Society”, funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF): Project No. P 22445-G17.
Project co-ordination: Professor. Christian Fuchs.
Theoretical
foundations of
privacy studies
83
Received 23 December 2010
Revised 16 April 2011
Accepted 16 April 2011
Journal of Information,
Communication & Ethics in Society
Vol. 9 No. 2, 2011
pp. 83-101
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1477-996X
DOI 10.1108/14779961111148613
complete e-mails and passwords – potentially breathing new life into probes in various
countries (The Times of India, October 23, 2010).
These examples point out how important the topic of privacy has become for the media
and for our daily lives. The media often alert that privacy seems to be under attack and
vanishing especially caused by the emergence of new information and communication
technologies such as the internet. For instance, Web 2.0 activities such as creating
profiles and sharing ideas on Facebook, announcing personal messages on Twitter,
uploading or watching videos on YouTube, and writing personal entries on Blogger,
enable the collection, analyses, and sale of personal data by commercial web platforms.
Nevertheless, what is actually meant with the term privacy? Although there is much
public talk about privacy, it seems that there is no definite answer; rather, ambiguous
concepts of what privacy is and what indeed privacy in peril is.
The overall aim of this paper is to clarify how privacy is defined in the academic
literature, what the different concepts of privacy have in common, what distinguish
them from one another, and what advantages and disadvantages such definitions have
in order to clarify if there is a gap in the existing literature. For doing so, Sections 2-4
contain a systematic discussion of the state of the art of privacy studies by establishing a
typology of existing privacy definitions and discussing commonalties and differences.
For analysing the literature on a more abstract level and identifying advantages and
disadvantages, it is essential to discuss commonalties and differences and to find certain
typologies. Finally, Section 5 gives a summary and makes some propositions for a
critical contribution to privacy studies.
Several privacy studies scholars have provided classifications of privacy definitions.
Schoeman (1984, pp. 2-3) for instance distinguishes between three groups of privacy
approaches, namely privacy as a claim or entitlement, privacy as the measure of control
an individual has over oneself, and privacy as a state or condition of limited access to a
person. Solove (2002, pp. 1099-123) discerns six conceptions of privacy that is privacy as:
(1) the right to be let alone;
(2) limited access to the self;
(3) secrecy;
(4) control over personal information;
(5) personhood (this includes individuality, dignity, autonomy, and antitotalitarianism);
and
(6) intimacy.
Solove (2006, p. 489) additionally develops a taxonomy of privacy and lists four basic
groups: information collection, information processing, information dissemination, and
invasion. According to Tavani (2011, p. 137), there are three different views of privacy:
accessibility privacy, decisional privacy, and informational privacy. Gormley (1992,
pp. 1337-8) sees four different cluster definitions in the privacy literature, namely privacy as:
(1) an expression of one’s personality or personhood;
(2) autonomy;
(3) ability to regulate information about oneself; and
(4) multidimensional approach.
JICES
9,2
84
To continue reading
Request your trial