Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T11:18:18.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Privacy Codes and Institutional Record Keeping: Procedural versus Strategic Approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

James B. Rule
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Privacy codes aim at protecting individuals' interests in the treatment of data on themselves held by institutions. One can distinguish between procedural and strategic principles underlying these codes. The former aim at shaping treatment of personal information, once compiled within data systems; the latter aim at limiting and dispersing personal information from the start. A historical view of the workings of these two principles gives more reasons for optimism in the case of strategic measures. In contrast, procedural restrictions on access to personal information are evidently subject to erosion and reversal with changes in larger political climates.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , Winter 2012 , pp. 119 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bennett, Colin, and Raab, Charles. 2003. The Governance of Privacy; Policy Instruments in Global Perspective. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
Brown, Ian. 2009. Regulation of Converged Communications Surveillance. In New Directions in Surveillance and Privacy, ed. Goold, Benjamin J. and Neyland, Daniel. Collompton, UK: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
Cohen, Noam. 2009. As Data Collection Grows, Privacy Erodes. New York Times, February 16, B3.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren, Fuller, Sally Riggs, and Mara‐Drita, Iona. 2001. Diversity Rhetoric and the Managerialization of Law. American Journal of Sociology 106:1589–1641.Google Scholar
Electronic Privacy Information Center and Privacy International (EPIC). 2005. Privacy and Human Rights; An International Survey of Privacy Laws and Developments. Washington, DC: Electronic Privacy Information Center.Google Scholar
Etzioni, Amitai. 1999. The Limits of Privacy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
European Union. 1995. Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC. Journal of the European Communities L281:31.Google Scholar
Greene, Richard Allen. 2008. UK Police DNA Bank a “Human Rights Violation.” http://CNN.com. http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/12/04/uk.dna.database/index.html (accessed March 9, 2011)Google Scholar
Hendricks, Evan. 2006. GAO: Feds Pay $30 Million to Information Brokers. Privacy Times 26 (8): 1.Google Scholar
Lessig, Lawrence. 1999. Code; and Other Laws of Cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Moore, Solomon. 2009. F.B.I. and States Vastly Expanding Databases of DNA. New York Times, April 19, A1.Google Scholar
Park, Whon‐Il. 2008. Republic of Korea. In Global Privacy Protection; the First Generation, ed. Rule, James B. and Greenleaf, Graham, 207–229. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishers.Google Scholar
Phillips, David J. 2004. Cell Phones, Surveillance and the State. Dissent Spring:53–58.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard. 1978. An Economic Theory of Privacy. Regulation May/June:19–26.Google Scholar
Reidenberg, Joel. 1998. Lex Informatica: The Formulation of Information Policy Rules through Technology. Texas Law Review 76 (3): 553–94.Google Scholar
Rimer, Sara. 2008. SAT Changes Policy, Opening Rift with Colleges. New York Times, December 31, A12.Google Scholar
Rule, James B. 2007. Privacy in Peril; How We are Sacrificing a Fundamental Right in Exchange for Security and Convenience. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Seipp, David J. 1978. The Right to Privacy in American History, Publication P‐78‐3, Program on Information Resources Policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Selznick, Philip. 1969. Law, Society and Industrial Justice. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Solove, Daniel. 2004. The Digital Person; Technology and Privacy in the Information Age. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
Stoddard, Jennifer. 2005. Position Statement on the Anti‐Terrorism Act, Submission of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada to the Senate Special Committee on the Anti‐Terrorism Act, May 9.Google Scholar
Szekely, Ivan. 2008. Hungary. In Global Privacy Protection; The First Generation, ed. Rule, James B. and Greenleaf, Graham, 174–206. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishers.Google Scholar
Townsend, Mark, and Asthana, Anushka. 2008. Put Young Children on DNA List, Urge Police. Observer, Sunday, March 16. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/mar/16/youthjustice.children (accessed March 9, 2011).Google Scholar
US Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 1973. Records, Computers and Rights of Citizens; Report of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Warren, Samuel, and Brandeis, Louis. 1890. The Right to Privacy. Harvard Law Review 4 (5): 193–220.Google Scholar
Winner, Langdon. 1980. Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedelus 109:121–36.Google Scholar
Wright, Gloria. 1996. Victim Relives Rape in Nightmares. Post‐Standard (Syracuse, New York), October 2, B1.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Diane L. 1983. Requiem for a Heavyweight: A Farewell to Warren and Brandeis's Privacy Tort. Cornell Law Review 68:291–367.Google Scholar