Department of Media, Culture, and Communication New York University MCC-­‐UE 1303: Privacy and Media Technology Course Description:
Few values have been as unalterably disturbed by developments in new media as
privacy. This course presents a philosophical, social, and legal inquiry into the impact of
digital communications upon privacy & its meanings, in order to prepare students to
recognize, contextualize, and analyze privacy challenges created by new information
technologies. We will explore the philosophical roots of privacy as a deeply held social
value and consider how it may conflict with other values, such as freedom of speech,
anonymity, efficiency, accountability, and national security. Our discussions will be
situated in leading ethical and legal controversies concerning new media tools (e.g.,
social networks, mobile apps, digital e-readers, wearable health sensors), practices (e.g.,
online tracking, behavioral advertising, automated face recognition, video surveillance),
platforms (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, and Google Maps), and other topics shaping today's
privacy discourse.
Course Details:
Technology has profoundly affected the human condition, individually as well as
socially. In large part, its study belongs in the province of science and engineering;
however, its increasing presence in society, its influence on economics, social and
interpersonal interaction, individual aspiration and achievement, and even cultural
content and transmission, has excited the interest of social scientists and humanists.
Concerned not only with material impacts but with the implications of technology for
social, political and moral life, their investigations have generated a new
multidisciplinary inquiry into human and social dimensions of technology. This inquiry
forms the backdrop for the course, except instead of covering the entire range of
technologies, it approaches the study of “impacts of technology” through the case of
information and digital communications technologies (ICT), further focusing on privacy.
The final goal, however, is not limited to understanding ICT and privacy better, but,
through them, to achieve a deeper appreciation of technology’s place in society and the
complex ways each shapes the other in iterative cycles of cause and effect.
Social commentary attending privacy developments have been persistent and diverse,
predicting the death of privacy, proclaiming its insignificance, and suggesting that
technology itself has brought privacy into existence as an inchoate set of disparate
values and interests. Whether any of these conclusions holds up to close scrutiny, a few
observations about ICT seem both evident and noteworthy: 1) it has generated an
unprecedented capacity to track and monitor people; 2) it facilitates the aggregation,
storage, and analysis of massive amounts of information about people; and 3) it enables
wide-ranging forms of access to, communication of, and publication of this information.
Our investigation in this course will be guided by a number of leading questions
including the following:
1
•
What are the key technologies at issue (e.g. social media, CCTV, databases,
cookies, biometrics, webcams)?
•
What key factors are responsible for driving the development of these
technologies?
•
What purposes are these technologies serving; whose purposes?
•
What are some of the current and projected social, political, and moral
consequences?
•
How do we evaluate them?
•
Does privacy conflict with other important values, e.g. speech, efficiency,
security, and accountability?
•
How should we resolve these conflicts; what tradeoffs should we make?
•
What steps should we, as individuals, and we, in society, take to protect privacy –
through technology, defensive action, and policy?
The study of technology and social values can be – indeed, must be – approached
through a variety of disciplinary perspectives. This course will emphasize the
philosophical, which will involve grappling with conceptual underpinnings of technology
and privacy – their meaning and value. Philosophical analysis will, however, be balanced
with significant contributions by legal scholars, computer scientists, social scientists,
and popular social critics.
Learning Objectives:
Students should be able to:
• Identify the key technologies through which privacy has been a central issue
•
Indicate the various approaches to the study of technology and social values
•
Describe the different social, legal, and cultural aspects that define privacy as a
value
•
Analyze the social narratives that have guided popular debates about the impact
of information technologies on individual privacy
Required Texts and Readings:
•
Nissenbaum, H. F. (2010). Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and The
Integrity of Social Life. Stanford University Press.
•
Regan, P. M. (1995). Legislating Privacy: Technology, Social Values, and Public
Policy. University of North Carolina Press.
•
Solove, D. J. (2007). The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the
Internet. Yale University Press.
In addition to these required texts, we will read a number of articles. In an attempt to
keep your pocketbooks fatter, I have attempted to find versions of articles we will read
that are available electronically via NYU library subscriptions. I was able to do so in
most cases; see the attached Reading List for links to each article we’ll read. For the few
other articles for which I could not find electronic versions, I will distribute copies in
class in advance of that day’s meeting.
Optional Internet Privacy & Technology Resources (For
Tracking Current Events):
2
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse:
Future of Privacy Forum
New York Times Technology News
Wall Street Journal All Things D(igital)
Ars Technica
Gizmodo
Mashable
GigaOM
ZDNet
Engaget
Course Homepage:
The most up-to-date syllabus will be maintained on NYU Classes. In addition, NYU
Classes contains useful links, resources, a discussion board and your unofficial grades.
Requirements and Grading Policy:
Students are expected to attend all classes and complete assigned readings prior to class
meetings. Grades will be assessed according to three criteria:
• Participation (in-class, online, and written responses to readings): I expect each
student to regularly contribute to in-class discussions. During the second week
of class, each student will pick two classes later in the semester to write
responses to the assigned readings that they will post the night before class via
the NYU Classes website. Students not writing responses should offer their own
thoughts in comments to each response via NYU Classes. Additionally, each
student should bring at least two privacy “current event” issues to discuss with
the class (2-3 minutes) per week. Aim to prepare more than two events in case
there is overlap with your fellow students!)
•
Three short essays: We will have three short essays due during the semester
that should amount to 10 pages each (double-spaced). I will announce the
topic/theme for each essay two weeks before they are due; and,
•
A written, take-home, final examination: You will have 24-hours to complete a
final examination consisting of four (4) questions that require a 1-2 page short
essay response. You will be on the honor system to 1) only take exactly 24 hours
(one continual time-period) for the exam; and, 2) do not consult with any other
person about the content of the exam until after finals are over.
In terms of percent of the final grade, it will break down like so:
30% Participation (attendance, contribution to class discussion, responses to readings)
45% Three short essays (10 pages)
25% Final Examination (written, take-home)
To pass the class, students must earn passing grades in all three elements.
Other Policies:
Absences and Lateness
3
More than two unexcused absences will automatically result in a lower grade. Chronic
lateness will also be reflected in your evaluation of participation. Regardless of the
reason for your absence you will be responsible for any missed work. Travel
arrangements do not constitute a valid excuse for rescheduling exams. There are no
extra credit assignments for this class.1
Assignment Format
Please type and double-space your written work. Typing improves the clarity and
readability of your work and double-spacing is easier on the eyes. Please also number
and staple multiple pages. You are free to use your preferred citation style. Please use it
consistently throughout your writing.
Submit all assignments via NYU Classes. To do so, click “Assignments” on our course
page and then click on the assignment you are submitting. It will then prompt you for a
file to attach; please name the file in the following format:
Lastname-Firstname-Assignment1.{doc|pdf}2
Evaluation Rubric
A = Excellent: This work is comprehensive and detailed, integrating themes and
concepts from discussions, lectures and readings. Writing is clear, analytical and
organized. Arguments offer specific examples and concisely evaluate evidence.
Students who earn this grade are prepared for class, synthesize course materials and
contribute insightfully.
B = Good: This work is complete and accurate, offering insights at general level of
understanding. Writing is clear, uses examples properly and tends toward broad
analysis. Classroom participation is consistent and thoughtful.
C = Average: This work is correct but is largely descriptive, lacking analysis. Writing is
vague and at times tangential. Arguments are unorganized, without specific examples
or analysis. Classroom participation is inarticulate.
D = Unsatisfactory: This work is incomplete, and evidences little understanding of the
readings or discussions. Arguments demonstrate inattention to detail, misunderstand
course material and overlook significant themes. Classroom participation is spotty,
unprepared and off topic.
F=Failed: This grade indicates a failure to participate and/or incomplete assignments
A
= 94-100
A-
= 90-93
B+
= 87-89
B
= 84-86
B-
= 80-83
C+
= 77-79
As a nonsectarian, inclusive institution, NYU policy permits members of any religious group to absent
themselves from classes without penalty when required for compliance with their religious obligations. The
policy and principles to be followed by students and faculty may be found at
http://www.nyu.edu/about/policies-guidelines-compliance/policies-and-guidelines/university-calendar-policyon-religious-holidays.html.
2
I try to accept any file format you might reasonably work with, but I prefer MS Word (DOC, DOCX) or PDF. If
you submit a DOC or DOCX file, I will comment using Word’s track changes feature. If you submit a PDF, I will
comment using PDF annotations.
1
4
C
= 74-76
C-
= 70-73
D+
= 65-69
D
= 60-64
F
= 0-59
Grade Appeals
Please allow two days to pass before you submit a grade appeal. This gives you time to
reflect on my assessment. If you still want to appeal your grade, please submit a short
but considered paragraph detailing your concerns. Based on this paragraph I will review
the question and either augment your grade or refine my explanation for the lost points.
General Decorum
Slipping in late or leaving early, sleeping, text messaging, surfing the Internet, doing
homework in class, eating, etc. are distracting and disrespectful to all participants in the
course.
Academic Dishonesty and Plagiarism
“Academic integrity is the guiding principle for all that you do…you violate the principle
when you: cheat on an exam; submit the same work for two different courses without
prior permission from your professors; receive help on a take-home [assignment/exam]
without prior permission from your professors; receive help on a take-home
[assignment/exam] that calls for independent work; or plagiarize. Plagiarism, whether
intended or not, is academic fraud. You plagiarize when, without proper attribution,
you do any of the following: copy verbatim from a book, article, or other media;
download documents from the internet [in order to submit them as your own]; purchase
documents [in order to submit them as your own]; paraphrase or restate someone else’s
facts, analysis, and/or conclusions…”
(see Steinhardt School Bulletin 2008-2010 p. 177-8)
Student Resources
•
Henry and Lucy Moses Center for students with disabilities: 726 Broadway, 2nd
Floor; New York, NY 10003; Phone: 212-998-4980, http://www.nyu.edu/csd/.
•
Writing Center: 269 Mercer Street, Room 233. Schedule an appointment online at
www.rich15.com/nyu/ or just walk-in.
5
Class Schedule
The schedule is approximate and may change a little as we experience the flow of reading
and discussion. The Reading List that follows this schedule has detailed citations to each
reading and links that allows you to access the electronic version of the article. I’ve
attempted to keep reading prep for each class to approximately 3 hours or less per class
day; each reading in the Schedule below has the number of pages for that reading after it
(“[65pp]” means 65 pages).
Date
WEEK 1,
Tuesday,
Sept. 3
WEEK 1,
Thursday,
Sept. 5
WEEK 2,
Tuesday,
Sept. 10
Topic
Introduction
to the Course
Easing Into
Privacy I:
Sousveillance,
Social Control
Through
Norms
Enforcement
Easing into
Privacy II:
NSA
Surveillance
Reading /Assignment
—
• Solove, The Future of Reputation (1-49; 68-75; 78-102) [74pp];
• Richtel, Young, in Love and Sharing Everything, Including a
Password [short New York Times article];
• Chambers, NSA and GCHQ: the Flawed Psychology of
Government Mass Surveillance [Guardian]
• Backdoors & Encryption:
o Ball, Borger, and Greenwald, Revealed: How US and
UK Spy Agencies Defeat Internet Privacy and Security
[Guardian]
o White House Response: ODNI Statement on the
Unauthorized Disclosure of NSA Cryptological
Capabilities [White House Tumblr Account]
• “Upstream” Internet Data Collection:
o Gorman & Valentino-Devries, New Details Show
Broader NSA Surveillance Reach [WSJ];
o NSA response: Joint Statement from the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence and the National
Security Agency [2pp];
• PRISM:
o
o
o
Gellman and Poitras, U.S., British Intelligence Mining
Data from Nine U.S. Internet Companies in Broad
Secret Program [Washington Post]
NSA slides explain the PRISM data-collection
program [Washington Post]
Auerbach, Mayer, and Eckersley, What We Need to
Know About PRISM [EFF Blog Post]
• Telephone Metadata Program:
o Greenwald, NSA Collecting Phone Records of
Millions of Verizon Customers Daily [Guardian]
o Verizon Forced to Hand over Telephone Data – Full
Court Ruling [4pp]
o Transcript: Obama’s Remarks on NSA Controversy
[Wall Street Journal]
o Declaration of Professor Edward W. Felten in the Case
of ACLU v. Clapper, US District Court for the
Southern District of New York [22pp]
6
• Hemisphere project:
o Ball, US Drug Agency Partners with AT&T for Access
to 'Vast Database' of Call Records [Guardian]
• FISA Court Limitations
o Leonnig, Court: Ability to Police US Spying Program is
Limited [Washington Post]
o Granik, FISA Court Rolls Over, Plays Dead [Forbes]
WEEK 2,
Thursday,
Sept. 12
Easing into
Privacy II:
WEEK 3,
Tuesday,
Sept. 17
WEEK 3,
Thursday,
Sept. 19
WEEK 4,
Tuesday,
Sept. 24
WEEK 4,
Thursday,
Sept. 26
Privacy,
Technology,
Society I
Privacy,
Technology,
Society II
Interest
Brawls I
WEEK 5,
Tuesday,
Oct. 1
Foundations,
Justifications I
WEEK 5,
Thursday,
Oct. 3
WEEK 6,
Tuesday,
Oct. 8
WEEK 6,
Thursday,
Oct. 10
WEEK 7,
Tuesday,
Oct. 15
WEEK 7,
Thursday,
Oct. 17
Foundations,
Justifications
II
Privacy and
Society
NSA
Surveillance
Interest
Brawls II
• The Dangers of Self-Policing
o NSA Broke Privacy Rules Thousands of Times Per
Year, Audit Finds [Washington Post]
Continue previous readings
Short Essay 1 Assigned
Sign Up for Online Reading Responses
• Nissenbaum, Privacy in Context (Introduction and Part One)
[65pp]
Winner, Do Artifacts Have Politics? [11pp];
Latour, Where Are the Missing Masses? [18pp];
Weinberg, Can Technology Replace Social Engineering? [8pp]
Ware, Records, Computers, and the Rights of Citizens [14pp];
Regan, Legislating Privacy (Chapter 5) [35pp];
Marx, A Tack in the Shoe [19pp]
Short Essay 1 Due
• Brin, The Transparent Society [8pp];
• Gandy, Toward a Political Economy of Information [29pp];
• Posner, An Economic Theory of Privacy [8pp]
•
• Nissenbaum, Privacy in Context (Intro to Section Two and
Chapter 4) [23pp];
• Reiman, Driving to the Panopticon [19pp];
• Gavison, Privacy and the Limits of the Law [52pp];
• Van den Hoven, Privacy and the Varieties of Informational
Wrongdoing [5pp]
Short Essay 2 Assigned
• Cohen, Examined Lives [67pp];
• Regan, Legislating Privacy (chapter 4) [40pp]
• Post, The Social Foundations of Privacy [54pp];
• Regan, Legislating Privacy (Chapter 8) [32pp]
•
•
•
•
•
Privacy Law:
Landscape,
Torts
• Warren & Brandeis, The Right to Privacy [28pp];
• Prosser, Privacy [41pp]
• Solove, The Future of Reputation, (125-160) [35pp]
Fall Break: No Class!
Privacy Law:
Constitution,
4th Am. I
Short Essay 2 Due
• Summary of US v. Jones, TBD [pp];
• Kerr, O., The Case for the Third-Party Doctrine [42pp];
• Friewald, A First Principles Approach to Communications Privacy
7
WEEK 8,
Tuesday,
Oct. 22
Privacy Law:
Constitution,
4th Am. II
WEEK 8,
Thursday,
Oct. 24
WEEK 9,
Tuesday,
Oct. 29
WEEK 9,
Thursday,
Oct. 31
WEEK 10,
Tuesday,
Nov. 5
WEEK 10,
Thursday,
Nov. 7
WEEK 11,
Tuesday,
Nov. 12
Privacy Law:
Internet Law
Statutes
Technology
and Society I
WEEK 11,
Thursday,
Nov. 14
WEEK 12,
Tuesday,
Nov. 19
WEEK 12,
Thursday,
Nov. 21
WEEK 13,
Tuesday,
Nov. 26
[18pp]
• Kerr, I. & McGill, Emanations, Snoop Dogs and Reasonable
Expectations of Privacy [41pp];
• Kerr, I. et. al., Tessling on My Brain [17pp];
• Nissenbaum, Privacy in Context (Chapters 5,6) [37pp]
• Closer look at ECPA; CFAA, CDA §230; Readings TBD [pp]
Technology
and Society II
• Pfaffenberger, Technological Dramas [31pp];
• Introna, Towards a Post-Human Intra-Actional Account of SocioTechnical Agency [22pp]
• Orlikowski & Barley, Technology and Institutions [21pp];
• TBD
Contextual
Integrity I
• Nissenbaum, Privacy in Context (Part 3) [115pp, divided between
this class period and the following class period]
Contextual
Integrity II
Short Essay 3 Assigned
• Nissenbaum, Privacy in Context (Part 3) [115pp, divided between
this class period and the previous class period]
• Gandy, Coming to Terms with the Panoptic Sort [23pp];
• Lyon, Data, Discrimination, Dignity [18pp]
Data
Aggregation,
Mining,
Profiling I
Data
Aggregation,
Mining,
Profiling II
Web 2.0,
Blogs, Social
Networks I
Web 2.0,
Blogs, Social
Networks II
Cultural
Content,
Tracking,
Advertising
• Vedder, KDD: The Challenge to Individualism [8pp]
• Zarsky, Mine Your Own Business [56pp]
• Allen, Coercing Privacy [36pp];
• Gajda, Judging Journalism: The Turn toward Privacy and Judicial
Regulation of the Press [68pp]
Short Essay 3 Due
• TBD [pp];
• Boyd, Making Sense of Privacy and Publicity [15pp];
• Allen, An Ethical Duty to Protect One’s Own Information Privacy?
[21pp]
• Lyon, D. (2007). (Selections). Surveillance Studies: An Overview
[61pp];
• Kerr, I. (2005). Hacking@Privacy: Anti-Circumvention Laws, DRM
and the Piracy of Personal Information. Canadian Privacy Law
Review. [pp TBD];
• Cohen, J. E. (1995). A Right to Read Anonymously: A Closer Look
at Copyright Management in Cyberspace. [pp TBD]
WEEK 13,
Thursday,
Nov. 28
WEEK 14,
Tuesday,
Dec. 3
Thanksgiving Recess; No Class!
Technology
and Bodily
Privacy:
Cyborgs, Data
Doubles, and
the Quantified
• Rosen, The Brain on the Stand [short New York Times article];
• Shen, Neuroscience, Mental Privacy, and the Law [53pp];
• Shilton, Participatory Personal Data: An Emerging Research
Challenge for the Information Sciences [21pp];
• Swan, Sensor Mania! The Internet of Things, Wearable
Computing, Objective Metrics, and the Quantified Self 2.0 [31pp,
8
Self
WEEK 14,
Thursday,
Dec. 5
Identification,
Anonymity,
Resistance I
WEEK 15,
Tuesday,
Dec. 10
Identification,
Anonymity,
Resistance II
WEEK 15,
Thursday,
Dec. 12
Obfuscation
skim];
• Nafus, Self-tracking as Soft Resistance, TBD [pp]
• Levy, Crypto-Rebels [16pp];
• Clark, Gauvin, & Adams, Exit Node Repudiation for Anonymity
Networks [18pp];
• Doe, What's in a Name? Who Benefits from the Publication Ban in
Sexual Assault Trials? [18pp];
• Froomkin, Anonymity and the Law in the United States [18pp];
• Froomkin, Identity Cards and Identity Romanticism [15pp];
• Lucock & Black, Anonymity and the Law in Canada [20pp];
• Nissenbaum, & Howe, TrackMeNot: Resisting Surveillance in Web
Search [20pp]
• Brunton & Nissenbaum, Political Theory of Obfuscation [22pp];
• Hartzog & Stutzman, The Case for Online Obscurity [52pp]
• Howe, D. C., & Nissenbaum, H. TrackMeNot: Resisting
Surveillance in Web Search.
9
Reading List:
WEEK 1
Tuesday, 03 Sept.: Introduction
• N/A
Thursday, 05 Sept.: Easing Into Privacy I
• Solove, D. (2007). The Future of Reputation (1-49; 68-75; 78-102), required text;
• Richtel, M. (Jan. 17, 2012). Young, in Love and Sharing Everything, Including a
Password, Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/us/teenagerssharing-passwords-as-show-of-affection.html?pagewanted=all
• Chambers, C. (Aug. 21, 2013). NSA and GCHQ: the Flawed Psychology of
Government Mass Surveillance, Retrieved from
http://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2013/aug/26/nsa-gchqpsychology-government-mass-surveillance
WEEK 2
Tuesday, 10 Sept.: Easing Into Privacy II – NSA Surveillance
• Backdoors & Encryption:
o Ball, J., Borger, J. and G. Greenwald (Sept. 5, 2013). Revealed: How
US and UK Spy Agencies Defeat Internet Privacy and Security,
GUARDIAN, Retrieved from
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-gchqencryption-codes-security
o White House Response: ODNI Statement on the Unauthorized
Disclosure of NSA Cryptological Capabilities (Sept. 6, 2013). WHITE
HOUSE TUMBLR ACCOUNT, Retrieved from
http://icontherecord.tumblr.com/post/60428572417/odnistatement-on-the-unauthorized-disclosure-of
• Hemisphere project:
o Ball, J. (Sept. 2, 2013). US Drug Agency Partners with AT&T for
Access to 'Vast Database' of Call Records, GUARDIAN, Retrieved
from: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/02/nsa-deaat-t-call-records-access
• “Upstream” Internet Data Collection:
o Gorman, S. and J. Valentino-Devries (Aug. 20, 2013). New Details
Show Broader NSA Surveillance Reach, WALL STREET JOURNAL,
Retrieved from:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014241278873241082045790
22874091732470.html
o NSA response (21 Aug. 2013): Joint Statement from the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Agency
[2pp], PDF Retrieved from:
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/speeches_testimonies/2013
_08_21_Joint_Statement_ODNI_NSA.pdf
• PRISM:
o
Gellman, B. and L. Poitras (June 6, 2013). U.S., British Intelligence
Mining Data from Nine U.S. Internet Companies in Broad Secret
Program, WASHINGTON POST, Retrieved from:
10
o
o
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-0606/news/39784046_1_prism-nsa-u-s-servers
NSA Slides Explain the PRISM Data-Collection Program (June 6,
2013). WASHINGTON POST, Retrieved from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prismcollection-documents/
Auerbach, D., Mayer, J. and P. Eckersley, What We Need to Know
About PRISM, ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, Retrieved from:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/what-we-need-to-knowabout-prism
• Telephone Metadata Program:
o Greenwald, G. (June 5, 2013), NSA Collecting Phone Records of
Millions of Verizon Customers Daily, GUARDIAN, Retrieved from
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phonerecords-verizon-court-order
o GUARDIAN (June 5, 2013). Verizon Forced to Hand over Telephone
Data – Full Court Ruling United States Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court, Retrieved from:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/veri
zon-telephone-data-court-order
o WALL STREET JOURNAL (June 7, 2013). Transcript: Obama’s Remarks
on NSA Controversy, Retrieved from:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/07/transcript-whatobama-said-on-nsa-controversy/
o Declaration of Professor Edward W. Felten in the Case of ACLU v.
Clapper, US District Court for the Southern District of New York,
Retrieved from
https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/natsec/clapper/2013.08.26%20AC
LU%20PI%20Brief%20-%20Declaration%20-%20Felten.pdf
• FISA Court Limitations
o Leonnig, C. (Aug. 15, 2013). Court: Ability to Police US Spying
Program is Limited, WASHINGTON POST, Retrieved from:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/court-ability-to-policeus-spying-program-limited/2013/08/15/4a8c8c44-05cd-11e3-a07f49ddc7417125_story.html
o Granik, J. (Aug. 28, 2013). FISA Court Rolls Over, Plays Dead,
FORBES, Retrieved from:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennifergranick/2013/08/28/fisacourt-rolls-over-plays-dead/
• The Dangers of Self-Policing
o Gellman, B. (Aug. 15, 2013). NSA Broke Privacy Rules Thousands of
Times Per Year, Audit Finds WASHINGTON POST, Retrieved from:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-0815/world/41431831_1_washington-post-national-security-agencydocuments
Thursday, 12 Sept.: Easing Into Privacy II – NSA Surveillance, Part 2
WEEK 3
11
Tuesday, 17 Sept.: Privacy, Technology, Society I
• Nissenbaum, Privacy in Context (Introduction and Part One), required text;
Thursday, 19 Sept.: Privacy, Technology, Society II
• Winner, L. (1988). Do Artifacts Have Politics? The Whale and the Reactor.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Retrieved from
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/papers/Winner.pdf
• Latour, B. (1992). Where Are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few
Mundane Artifacts. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building
society: Studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved
from
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/papers/Latour_Missing_Masses_2.pdf
• Weinberg, A. M. (1991). Can Technology Replace Social Engineering? In W. B.
Thompson (Ed.), Controlling Technology: Contemporary Issues. Buffalo, NY:
Prometheus Books. Retrieved from
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/papers/SocialEngineering.pdf
WEEK 4
Tuesday, 24 Sept.: Interest Brawls I
• Ware, W. H. (1973). Records, Computers and the Rights of Citizens. Santa Monica,
CA: U.S. Department of Health, Education & Welfare. Retrieved from
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2008/P5077.pdf
• Regan, Legislating Privacy (Chapter 5), required text;
• Marx, G. T. (2003). A Tack in the Shoe: Neutralizing and Resisting the New
Surveillance. Journal of Social Issues, 59(2), 369-390. Retrieved from
http://web.mit.edu/gtmarx/www/tack.html
Thursday, 26 Sept.: Interest Brawls II
• Brin, D. (1996). The Transparent Society. Wired Magazine, 4(12). Retrieved from
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.12/fftransparent_pr.html
• Gandy, O. H. (1993).3 Toward a political economy of personal information.
Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 10(1), 70-97. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15295039309366849
• Posner, R. A. (1978). An Economic Theory of Privacy. Regulation, 2(3). Retrieved
from http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv2n3/v2n3-4.pdf
•
WEEK 5
Tuesday, 01 Oct.: Foundations, Justifications I
• Nissenbaum, Privacy in Context (Intro to Section Two and Chapter 4), required
text
• Reiman, J. H. (1995).3 Driving to the Panopticon: A Philosophical Exploration of
the Risks to Privacy Posed by the Highway Technology of the Future. Santa Clara
Computer & High Technology Law Journal, 11, 27. Retrieved from
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/sccj1
1&id=37
• Gavison, R. (1979).3 Privacy and the Limits of Law. Yale Law Journal, 89, 421.
Retrieved from
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/ylr89
&id=441
These articles are available through NYU Library e-subscriptions. You may need to be on campus to access
them through the provided links.
3
12
•
Van den Hoven, M. J. (1997).3 Privacy and the Varieties of Moral Wrong-Doing in
an Information Age. Computers and Society, 27(3), 33–37. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/270858.270868
Thursday, 03 Oct.: Foundations, Justifications II
• Cohen, J. E. (1999).3 Examined Lives: Informational Privacy and The Subject as
Object. Stan. L. Rev., 52, 1373. Retrieved from
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/stflr
52&id=1393
• Regan, Legislating Privacy (chapter 4), required text
WEEK 6
Tuesday, 08 Oct.: Privacy and Society
• Post, R. C. (1989).3 The Social Foundations of Privacy: Community and Self in the
Common Law Tort. California Law Review, 77(5), 957–1010. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3480641
• Regan, Legislating Privacy (Chapter 8), required text
Thursday, 10 Oct.: Privacy Law Landscape, Torts
• Warren, S. D., & Brandeis, L. D. (1890). The Right to Privacy. Harvard Law Review,
4(5), 193–220. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1321160
• Prosser, W. L. (1960). Privacy. California Law Review, 48(3), 383. Retrieved from
http://www.californialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/misc/prosser_privacy.pdf
• Solove, D. J. The Future of Reputation – required text
WEEK 7
Tuesday, 15 Oct.: Fall Break; No Class!
Thursday, 17 Oct.: Privacy Law: Constitution, 4th Am. I
• Kerr, O. S. (2008). The Case for the Third-Party Doctrine. Mich. L. Rev., 107, 561.
Retrieved from http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/pdfs/107/4/kerr.pdf
• Freiwald, S. (2007). A First Principles Approach to Communications Privacy. Stan.
Tech. L. Rev. Retrieved from http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/freiwald-firstprinciples.pdf
WEEK 8
Tuesday, 22 Oct.: Privacy Law: Constitution, 4th Am. II
• Kerr, I., & McGill, J. (2006).3 Emanations, Snoop Dogs and Reasonable
Expectations of Privacy. Crim. L.Q., 52, 392. Retrieved from
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/clwq
rty52&id=418
• Kerr, I., Binnie, M., & Aoki, C. (2008). Tessling on My Brain: The Future of Lie
Detection and Brain Privacy in the Criminal Justice System. Canadian Journal of
Criminology and Criminal Justice, 50(3), 367–387. Retrieved from
http://iankerr.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/tessling_on_my_brain.pdf
• Nissenbaum, Privacy in Context (Chapters 5,6), required text
Thursday, 24 Oct.: Privacy Law: Internet Law Statutes
• TBD
13
WEEK 9
Tuesday, 29 Oct.: Technology and Society I
• Pfaffenberger, B. (1992).3 Technological Dramas. Science, Technology & Human
Values, 17(3), 282–312. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/690096
• Introna, L. D. (2007). Towards A Post-Human Intra-Actional Account of SocioTechnical Agency (and Morality). Proceedings of the Moral Agency and Technical
Artefacts Scientific Workshop. Presented at the NIAS, Hauge. Retrieved from
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/papers/posthuman.pdf
Thursday, 31 Oct.: Technology and Society II
• Orlikowski, W. J., & Barley, S. R. (2001).3 Technology And Institutions: What Can
Research on Information Technology and Research on Organizations Learn From
Each Other? MIS quarterly, 25(2), 145–165. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/3250927
WEEK 10
Tuesday, 05 Nov.: Contextual Integrity I
• Nissenbaum, Privacy in Context (Part 3), required text
Thursday, 07 Nov.: Contextual Integrity II
• [CONTINUED] Nissenbaum, Privacy in Context (Part 3), required text
WEEK 11
Tuesday, 12 Nov.: Data Aggregation, Mining, Profiling I
• Gandy Jr, O. H. (1996).4 Coming to Terms with the Panoptic Sort. In D. Lyon & E.
Zureik (Eds.), Computers, Surveillance, and Privacy (pp. 132-155). Univ of
Minnesota Press.
• Lyon, D. (2007).4 Data, Discrimination, Dignity. Surveillance Studies: An Overview
(pp. 179-197). Polity.
Thursday, 14 Nov.: Data Aggregation, Mining, Profiling II
• Vedder, A. (1999). KDD: The Challenge to Individualism. Ethics and Information
Technology, 1(4), 275–281. Retrieved from
http://www.springerlink.com/content/jm7h7n5727861254/
• Zarsky, T. Z. (2002).3 Mine Your Own Business: Making the Case for the
Implications of the Data Mining of Personal Information in the Forum of Public
Opinion. Yale J. L. & Tech., 5, 1. Retrieved from
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/yjolt
5&id=3
WEEK 12
Tuesday, 19 Nov.: Web 2.0, Blogs, Social Networks I
• Allen, A. L. (1999).3 Coercing Privacy. Wm. & Mary L. Rev., 40, 723. Retrieved from
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/wmlr
40&id=735
4
These readings are available in the course reader.
14
•
Gajda, A. (2009). Judging Journalism: The Turn Toward Privacy and Judicial
Regulation of the Press. Cal. L. Rev., 97, 1039. Retrieved from
http://www.californialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/97-4/09Aug_Gajda.pdf
Thursday, 21 Nov.: Web 2.0, Blogs, Social Networks I
• Allen, A.L. (2013). An Ethical Duty to Protect One’s Own Information Privacy?
Penn Legal Scholarship Repository,
http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/451/
• Boyd, D. (2010). Making Sense of Privacy and Publicity. Presented at the South by
Southwest (SXSW 2010), Austin, TX. Retrieved from
http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/2010/SXSW2010.html
WEEK 13
Tuesday, 26 Nov.: Cultural Content, Tracking, Advertising
• Lyon, D. (2007). (Selections). Surveillance Studies: An Overview (pp. 9-70). Malden,
MA: Polity Press.
• Kerr, I. (2005). Hacking@Privacy: Anti-Circumvention Laws, DRM and the Piracy
of Personal Information. Canadian Privacy Law Review. Retrieved from
http://iankerr.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/HACKING-at-PRIVACY_canadianprivacy-law-review_-FINAL.pdf
• Cohen, J. E. (1995). A Right to Read Anonymously: A Closer Look at Copyright
Management in Cyberspace. Conn. L. Rev., 28, 981. Retrieved from
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/jec/read_anonymously.pdf
Thursday, 28 Nov.: Thanksgiving Recess: No Class!
WEEK 14
Tuesday, 03 Dec.: Technology and Bodily Privacy: Cyborgs, Data Doubles, and the
Quantified Self
•
Rosen, J. (March 11, 2007). The Brain on the Stand, New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/magazine/11Neurolaw.t.html?pagewanted
=all
•
Shen, F.X. (March 23, 2013). Neuroscience, Mental Privacy, and the Law, Harvard
Journal of Law and Public Policy, SSRN,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2269078
•
Shilton, K. (In Press). Participatory Personal Data: An Emerging Research
Challenge for the Information Sciences, Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology,
http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~kshilton/ShiltonJASISTpreprint.pdf
•
Swan, M. (Nov. 9, 2012). Sensor Mania! The Internet of Things, Wearable
Computing, Objective Metrics, and the Quantified Self 2.0, J. Sens. Actuator
Netw., http://www.mdpi.com/2224-2708/1/3/217
•
Nafus, D. (In Press). Self-tracking as Soft Resistance, TBD.
Thursday, 05 Dec.: Identification, Anonymity, Resistance I
• Levy, S. (1993). Crypto Rebels. Wired Magazine, 1(02). Retrieved from
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.02/crypto.rebels.html
15
•
•
•
Clark, J., Gauvin, P., & Adams, C. (2009). Exit node repudiation for anonymity
networks. In I. Kerr, C. Lucock, & V. Steeves (Eds.), Lessons from the Identity Trail:
Anonymity, Privacy, and Identity in a Networked Society. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press. Retrieved from
http://people.scs.carleton.ca/~clark/papers/2009_idtrail.pdf
Doe, J. (2009). What’s in a Name? Who Benefits from the Publication Ban in
Sexual Assault Trials? In I. Kerr, C. Lucock, & V. Steeves (Eds.), Lessons from the
Identity Trail: Anonymity, Privacy, and Identity in a Networked Society. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.idtrail.org/files/ID Trail
Book/9780195372472_kerr_15.pdf
Froomkin, A. M. (2009). Anonymity and the Law in the United States. In I. Kerr, C.
Lucock, & V. Steeves (Eds.), Lessons from the Identity Trail: Anonymity, Privacy,
and Identity in a Networked Society. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1309225
WEEK 15
Tuesday, Dec. 10: Identification, Anonymity, Resistance II
• Froomkin, A. M. (2009). Identity Cards and Identity Romanticism. In I. Kerr, C.
Lucock, & V. Steeves (Eds.), Lessons from the Identity Trail: Anonymity, Privacy,
and Identity in a Networked Society. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1309222
• Lucock, C., & Black, K. (2009). Anonymity and the Law in Canada. In I. Kerr, C.
Lucock, & V. Steeves (Eds.), Lessons from the Identity Trail: Anonymity, Privacy,
and Identity in a Networked Society. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Retrieved from http://www.idtrail.org/files/ID Trail
Book/9780195372472_kerr_25.pdf
Thursday, Dec. 12: Obfuscation
• Brunton, F., & Nissenbaum, H. (2011). Vernacular resistance to data collection
and analysis: A political theory of obfuscation. First Monday, 16(5). Retrieved
from
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle
/3493/2955
• Hartzog, W., & Stutzman, F. (2011). The Case for Online Obscurity. In C. Wolf & J.
Polonetsky (Eds.), Privacy Papers for Policy Makers. Washington D.C.: Future of
Privacy Forum. Retrieved from http://www.futureofprivacy.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/07/The Case for Online Obscurity.pdf
• Howe, D. C., & Nissenbaum, H. (2009). TrackMeNot: Resisting Surveillance in Web
Search. In I. Kerr, C. Lucock, & V. Steeves (Eds.), Lessons from the Identity Trail:
Anonymity, Privacy, and Identity in a Networked Society. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press. Retrieved from http://www.idtrail.org/files/ID Trail
Book/9780195372472_kerr_25.pdf
16