First Class

Andrew Mason

October 9, 1997

Paper #2

The Issues of Privacy in the Information Age

This is the Information Age, the age of gathering information. People are introduced to all types of information from print and broadcast media, and they themselves are the object of information collected on an increasing scale. Computers have be come so entrenched in people's lives that they have come to take computers for granted, and usually stop to complain on occasions when these machines fail them. Computers collect our paychecks, pay our bills, dispense our cash, send our orders, and save our data. While computers may only contain bits and pieces of our personal information, collectively computers know us better than many of our friends and relatives. The use of the information highway by marketing firms, law enforcement agencies, the me dia, financial and educational institutions to collect and compile personal information is making may consumer advocates and privacy experts uneasy. However, many Americans, even though concerned about privacy invasions, simply accept the loss of their p rivacy as a consequency of the Information Age and are not willing to give up the benefits and conveniences which information technology has provided them (Long 19).

British novelist, George Orwell, may have been accurate in his novel, 1984, envisioning a future where citizens are constantly monitored, but he never imagined how or to what degree this would be done. Today, a citizen's personal informatio n is everywhere: processed, manipulated, stored, and sold. In the last 10 years, data collection has escalated (Mossberg B1). There is nothing that doesn't create a pool of data that can be used in creative ways. Computers can collect personal data t o find patterns that reveal a citizen's habits, preferences, and personality. What is particularly surprising is the extent in current years to which this personal data about citizens can be obtained and made available to many interested parties. The is sue, therefore, affects everyone. Privacy and the consumer, privacy and the workplace, and privacy and medical records in the Information Age are all issues of privacy that people must deal with today.

In the 1990's, the Internet has virtually changed the lifestyle of the consumer. One-to-one marketing and advertising has become very popular on the Internet, and the personal service it gives a consumer can save him time and effort. A growing nu mber of people, including children, are using digital networks for all kinds of personal transactions, exposing much more of themselves, via E-mail or chat-lines or even Web sites, by completing forms filled with personal data in order to get the service they need. For example, the DoubleClick Netowrk, an ad agency, is very popular with consumers, especially the young. If a consumer clicks onto one of its many Web Sites, like "The Dilbert Zone," the DoubleClick Network records into its private database whatever information it can get about its new shopper: the zip code, area code, business address, even the type of computer the consumer is using. At the same time, DoubleClick can also start collecting information about action the consumer ta kes online (Is 62). For example, if I am a student who likes baseball, I might start seeing on-line ads and offers, receiving e-mail solicitations for the newest state-of -the -art baseball equipment. All I have to do is take advantage of this easy and convenient way to shop, is to fill out a detailed personal questionnaire about myself, so that DoubleClick can target through the Internet. This is customized service for me, the consumer, so I fill out the information which will include my name, address , credit card number, hobbies and interests. Automatically, I have results, as online ads for goods and services, accompanied by order forms, appear on my screen.

There is nothing wrong with such one-to-one marketing, and consumers may want to be on the receiving end. But once a consumer puts information about himself on the Web, the threat exists for an invasion of privacy. Often the consumer is not aware that his privacy is being invaded as this personal information is given away, or sold to, other companies. For example, Cybergold, a new and popular on-line marketing company, will continue to make this personal data on the consumer available to more co mpanies on the digital network (Mossberg B1). As the consumer continues to take advantage of these companies; goods and services offered via the Internet, and, as he fills out more questionnaires for them, further information is collected about him in th e database. His credit file, work history, health reports, bank balances, family statistics, and personal lifestyles may now be available. Soon, this bank of information expands the capability of checking up on a consumer's background which becomes publ ic information to anyone, reputable or not, on the Internet. Thus, for the convenience of shopping on-line, the consumer is threatened by the loss of personal privacy. On June 4, 1996, the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Consumer Protection sponsor ed a public workshop in Washington called "Consumer Privacy in the Global Information Infrastructure." This government workshop addressed the issue of the emerging on-line marketplace and the various ways that personal data could be protected, allowing consumers to exercise choice about how their personal information could be used (Is 6).

The workplace in the Information Age has taken on a new look, especially in the area of high-tech advances. As information technology expands, so does the productivity of businesses. The advanced technology has also allowed employers to monitor t heir employees for "good business." For employers in the workplace, electronic monitoring is one way they can protect their company's interests and prevent employees from taking advantage of them. Companies can monitor for quality control, wor kplace safety, and health care cost containment using sophisticated technology. Dan Yager, general counsel of the Labor Policy Association, a lobbying group that represents business interests, states "To some extent, legitimate electronic monitoring offers an opportunity to detect people whose workplace behavior indicates a serious problem. It is appropriate when it is done to protect work that affects the success or failure of business (Clavin 82)."

In the workplace, employers can continue to monitor workers with relatively few restrictions. One form of electronic monitoring, done by computer, may include searches of employee computer files, voicemail, E-mail, and other networking communicati ons. It is estimated that more than 60 million workers currently correspond via E-mail, sending approximately two billion messages every month (Posch 55). A recent case occurred in the Nissan Motor Corporation in Southern California where two employee t rainers were coordinating their efforts by keeping in touch via E-mail. At time, their messages contained negative remarks about upper management. They did not realize that their boss was monitoring their E-mail remarks, until they were called in and re primanded. The two women sued Nissan for invasion of privacy, but the court ruled in favor of the company because Nissan owned the computer system (Clavin 76). Because of the threat to individual privacy, the growth of E-mail litigation is one of the fa stest growing areas in the United States. Federal and state laws have not kept up with the varied use of E-mail (Posch 54).

Besides computer monitoring in the workplace, other forms of electronic monitoring include video surveillance, closed circuit television, and tracking devices. Workplace surveillance becomes more sophisticated and more effective in monitoring work ers' activities. A camera as small as a thimble can be installed in workers' offices or lounges to record what they are doing and talking about; many times surveillance cameras are used in industries to track down thefts and record questionable behavior. At a Surveillance Expo show, a salesperson demonstrated the latest in sophisticated video cameras: body video. Wearing a tiny camera hidden in a pair of glasses, the salesperson strutted about the stage as the image of his audience was produced on a n earby video monitor. This camera is being marketed to industries in the United States this year (Frankel 12). One of the most controversial developments in the line of tracking devices is the "active bridge." A small card that looks like an i dentification badge is clipped onto the worker's clothing, transmitting a signal every ten seconds to a central computer. Employers say the devices will allow workers to make more efficient use of their time. The badge will tell supervisors exactly wher e an employee is located in the building, eliminating the time and effort taken to hunt them down. Privacty rights activists forsee that the badge will invade the employee's privacy, because every step he takes will be monitored. They insist that employ ees will become less productive if continuously scrutinized under surveillance, and it will harm worker morale (Long 57).

The Information Age has suffered especially in health care as the privacy of medical records is being invaded. Technology of computer-based patient records is beginning to improve in terms of results and costs. Traditional paper medical records a re typically incomplete and often illegible, so physicians turn to electronic medical records for quick and relevant information on the injured and ill, especially necessary in emergencies. The health care industry spent $15 billion on information techno logy in 1996 for the following: electronic medical records, billing systems, internal networks and agencies, and public networks, such as the Internet, to distribute health-related information and data. Types of organizations that collect and store elec tronic health information include members of the direct health care provider teams such as doctors, nurses, lab technicians, and groups such as insurance companies, government and private agencies (Why 24). As medical and health information becomes more accessible through electonic sources, medical records of patients will be made available to many people.

While the health care information superhighway has brought such benefits as detailed health and medical information and has increased the efficiency of managed care organizations in data collection and analysis, outsiders who have access to patient s' medical histories are using them as tools of discrimination in employment, promotions, insurance coverage, and even politics. Dr. Denise Nagel, president of Coalition for Patient Rights of New England, state, "The traditional right of medical pri vacy, protected by the Hippocratic Oath, is being eroded as our medical records become transformed into commodities desired by insurers, employers, researchers, and yes, even police." She goes on to give the example of a woman, who with only average computer skills, was able to access information abou ther psychiatric condition from her medical record in an insurance company's database. Concerned that future employers would obtain it as easily as she had, she requested its removal, but was turned d own by the company (Nagel A13). When a confidential list of 4,000 AIDS patients wound up in newsrooms in Tampa, Florida, last year, it was discovered that the computerized medical records had been tapped by a major pharmaceutical company (Butler 8). Th ese examples arouse concern about how private medical data really is. Patients have the right to keep their medical history private for their own protection, but that privacy is increasingly being threatened by the growth of the information superhighway.

Securing electronic medical records needs to be done on two levels. The first is protecting confidentiality of medical information as it is held and used by individual health care providers. The second is protecting the information as it moves fr om a doctor's office to outside parties such as insurers, employers, and health care managers. Introduced before Congress in January 1997 was the Fair Health Information Practices Act, written by Representative Gary Condit of California, incorporating th e two levels into a legal document which is yet to be passed by Congress and signed into law by the president (Electronic A22).

To add privacy, the government has invented a chip to deal with the growth of electonic eavesdropping. The Clipper Chip is a cryptographic device used to protect private communications in today's technology. Inserted into a telephone or computer, it is used to encrypt voice mail messages, while a similar chip known as a Capstone would encrypt data. It uses a code to scramble the information put into the computer so outsiders cannot read it. The Clipper has a built-in back door that allows the U .S. government to use a special key to unlock the code. The government developed this chip in order to protect the privacy of people. Privacy groups, however, feel the Clipper will turn the nation's phone system into a vast surveillance network that coul d be easily abused (Buchsbaum 12).

A major problem of the Clipper Chip deals with the Law Enforcement Access Field (LEAF) and escrowed keys. The LEAF allows government agencies to investigate wrong doings by criminals and terrorists. They must first obtain a search warrant, then p resent the warrant to government offices obtaining the keys, and finally use the key to obtain information about the parties. People see escrowed keys as a way to prevent eavesdropping while they see the LEAF field as a violation of their freedom of spee ch and personal privacy. If the government passes the Clipper Chip, then the government would have access to everyone's personal information (Rosen 2).

The Information Age is growing by the second. Many people realize this and are for technology advancing. Because of this many people do not know that their privacy is being invaded. The Clipper Chip is a device that might help people who want th eir privacy. The government would hold the key to access a person's computer or telephone, but they must have a court order before they can use the key to tap into a person's computer. People are leaving their privacy in the hands of the government. Th e issues of privacy and the consumer, privacy and the workplace, and privacy and medical records have forced the government to investigate encryption as a way of deterring the invasion of personal privacy in the Information Age.

Buchsbaum, Herbert. "No Secrets in Cyberspace?" Scholastic Update 2 Sept. 1994: 11-13.

Butler, Robert N. "Privacy in the Electronic Age." Geriatrics Jan. 1997: 8-9.

Clavin, Thomas. "Is Your Boss Spying on You?" Ladies' Home Journal April 1995: 82.

"Electronic Threats to Medical Privacy." New York Times 11 May 1997: A22.

Frankel, Mark. "Corporate Snooping 101." New Republic 20 May 1996: 11-12.

"Is Your Computer Spying on You? Consumer Research Magazine May 1997: 6.

Long, Robert Emmet. Rights to Privacy. New York: H.W. Wilson Co., 1997.

Mossberg, Walter A. "Threats to Privacy on-line Become More Worrisome." Wall Street Journal

24 Oct. 1996: B1.

Nagel, Denise M. "The End of Personal Medical Privacy." Wall Street Journal 7 June 1996:

A13.

Posch, Robert J. "E-mail and Voice Mail: Basic Legal Issues for Corporate Management."

Direct Marketing Jan. 1996: 54-57.

Rosen, Dan. "Is the Clipper Chip Necessary?" [http://acm.cis.udel.edu/~rosen/cscc2.html]

Sept. 18,1997.

"Why Your Health Privacy is Threatened." Consumer Research Magazine April 1997: 24-27.

Buchsbaum, Herbert. "No Secrets in Cyberspace?" Scholastic Update 2 Sept. 1994: 11-13.

Butler, Robert N. "Privacy in the Electronic Age." Geriatrics Jan. 1997: 8-9.

Clavin, Thomas. "Is Your Boss Spying on You?" Ladies' Home Journal April 1995: 82.

Cooper, Michael. "With Success of Cameras, Concerns over Privacy." New York Times 5 Feb.

1997: B4.

"Electronic Threats to Medical Privacy." New York Times 11 May 1997: A22.

Everett-Green, Robert. "Cyberspace." 1996 Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year. 1996.

Frankel, Mark. "Corporate Snooping 101." New Republic 20 May 1996: 11-12.

Forrester, Tom, and Perry Morrison. Computer Ethics. Cambridge: MIT, 1990.

Goode, Stephen. "Are Privacy Rights Still Inalienable?" Insight Magazine on the News 19 Aug.

1996: 18-19.

Houlder, Vanessa. "The Blessing and Curse of E-mail." World Press Review June 1997: 33-34.

"Is Your Computer Spying on You?" Consumer Reports May 1997: 6.

Long, Robert Emmet. Rights to Privacy. New York: H.W. Wilson Co., 1997.

Mossberg, Walter A. "Threats to Privacy on-line Become More Worrisome." Wall Street Journal

24 Oct. 1996: B1.

Nagel, Denise M. "The End of Personal Medical Privacy." Wall Street Journal 7 June 1996:

A13.

Posch, Robert J. "E-mail and Voice Mail: Basic Legal Issues for Corporate Management."

Direct Marketing Jan. 1996: 54-57.

Quittner, Joshua. "Invasion of Privacy." Time 25 Aug. 1997: 28-35.

Rosen, Dan. "Is the Clipper Chip Necessary?" [http://acm.cis.udel.edu/~rosen/cscc2.html'

Sept. 18, 1997.

Spinello, Richard A. "The End of Privacy." America 4 Jan. 1997: 9-13.

United States. Congress. House. Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Communications and Computer Surveillance, Privacy, and Security. 103 Cong., 2nd

Sess. Wahington: GPO, 1994.

"Virtual Privacy." Economist. 10 Feb. 1996: 16-17.

Wagner, David. "High-Tech Snoops Get Real Personal." Insight Magazine on the News 19

Aug. 1996: 18-19.

"Why Your Health Privacy is Threatened." Consumer Research Magazine April 1997: 24-27.

Andrew Mason

November 8, 1997

Paper #3

The Case for Privacy in the Information Age

In a day in the life of Joe, an ordinary American, he drives to the office, owrks at a computer, browses in a shop at lunch time, then picks up some milk and a video on the way home, where a pile of junk mail and bills await him. At every stop alo ng the way, his doings can be watched, monitored, tabulated, and sold. On this typical day, Joe, our ordinary American, does not realize how technology has changed his private life. Joe's driving route may be tracked by a sophisticated traffic system. At work, his employer can listen in to his business conversations on the telephone, and tap into his computer, e-mail, or voice-mail. At the shopping center, the secret closed-circuit camera may seek him out personally. The shop is allowed to put peepho les in the fitting rooms. Some have hidden microphones, too. If he uses his credit card, not only does the card company keep tabs on when, where, and what he buys, it may sell that data to other marketers. A purchase of out-door furniture means catalog s selling barbecue grills, mowing machines, or lawn seed are likely to be piled as junk mail in his mail box. Quickly he sits down at his desk and fills out the Reader's Digest Sweepstakes Entry form, hoping that this time Ed McMahon will arrive at his door with the big check, so he eagerly supplies personal information which, unknowingly to him, will be sold to other marketers and distributed to databases throughout the world. Joe is unaware of others who, on this typical day in the electronic age, ha ve peered into his private life.

Technology plays a significant part in today's society. As technology advances, new controversies arise, many involving privacy rights. Medical, workplace, and consumer privacy are all concerns of many Americans. Patients don't know who is looki ng at their medical records over the computer. Consumers purchasing items over the Internet don't realize they are giving away more information then they are revealing. And employees have no clue that they are constantly being watched by video surveilla nce and through e-mail messages. There needs to be some sort of laws or restrictions to help a person maintain medical, workplace, and consumer privacy because today's technology is growing too fast just to be left alone. I feel that privacy is a core v alue in our socieyt, and an issue of great concern that needs to be looked at by people very carefully.

In a recent poll, 80% of Americans told pollsters they worry that they have lost all control over their personal information (We 28). But at the same time, they relish in information. People are still willing to fill out warranty cards, questionn aires, and surveys on themselves, and send them to companies where their data becomes public knowledge in the stream of databases. As recently as 1990, the Internet was almost unknown to the general public, being a tool used to assist U.S. military and a cademic research. Then, in 1992, Senator Al Gore, Jr., announced the "information superhighway" and millions of new users eagerly embraced this new medium. By the end of 1995, the volume of exchanges between these users, who numbered 30 millio n in 1995, surpassed 30 terabytes per month, or enough information to fill 30 million books of 700 pages each (Everett-Green 158). Once a nation depending on the postal service, we Americans now are turning to fast and efficient, but misused E-mail. Acc ording to Forrester, the Massachusetts-based market research company, the use of e-mail in the U.S. will go from 15% to 50% within the next five years (Houlder 34). In 1996, citizens of Baltimore embraced an ambitious video surveillance program, putting into place cameras which monitored the heart of the city's downtown 24 hours a day. Even though the cameras recorded everyone's whereabouts in this area which were placed ina data pool, crime in the area dropped 50% in 1996 from the previous year. Balti more's citizens did not complain about having themselves monitored (Cooper 4).

Technology and government are posing new challenges to our right to privacy. Is privacy, "the right to be left alone," as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called it - a relic, something we've now outgrown in the Information Age and c an do without? (Goode 22) The word privacy is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights. But, it was very much on the minds of our forefathers. John Adams, when writing to his wife, Abigail, stated that it was necessary to retreat from t he "hard labor" of devising the Constitution in order to gain the solitude to reflect upon his thoughts. George Washington and Benjamin Franklin worried that the Postal Department would make letters people were sending available to anyone. The privacy of Americans would be invaded each time a letter would be sent (Goode 22).

What would our Founding Fathers think today? Modern technology makes snooping into the private thoughts, business, lives, and e-mail of Americans much easier than opening private mail in Benjamin Franklin's time; and, people today, essentially you ng people, seem to embrace this technological era. Is privacy dead or is privacy still essential to American society? William Faulkner gave an emotional plea for personal privacy in an article published in Harpel's July 1955, entitled "The American Dream: What happened to it?":

"The American sky which was once the topless empyrean of freedom, the American air

which was once the living breath of liberty, are now become one vast down-crowding

pressure to abolish them both, by destroying man's individuality as a man by destroying

the last vestige of privacy without which man cannot be an individual. Our very

architecture itself has warned us. Time was when you could see neither from inside nor

from outside through the walls of our houses. Time is when you can see from inside out

though still not from outside in through the walls. Time will be when you can do both.

Then privacy will indeed be gone: he who is individual enough to want it even to change

his shirt or bathe in, will be cursed by one universal American voice as subversive to the

American way of life..." (Annals 309)

William Faulkner was unaware that the modern architecture of the Information Age does allow others to see from outside in through the walls of our personal lives by wiring our every move. For example, in the workplace, employers can read your e-mail, look at your personal computer files, eavesdrop on your phone calls, film you with hidden video cameras in public areas and rest rooms, and track your past employment records, financial status, and medical histories by tapping into computer data banks (Wo rkplace 1). Indeed, as Faulkner predicted, time has come when you can see from inside out and from outside in through the walls, and privacy is gone.

In my opinion, privacy is a very important element to the individual and to American society. In rural northwestern Pennsylvania, this is the time of year when people escape the environment of the Information Age, and move out into the solitude of autumn. There is nothing more private than walking through the woods around our house, bright colored leaves hanging on the trees, and dead leaves crumpling under our feet, a greyish-blue sky's and cool, crisp air. In this solitude, as John Adams wrote , my family and I have found a privacy that is very necessary to us. It has helped us to be more productivve, more creative, and more active than I believe some people who have deserted their sense of privacy for the electronic age to be. Roger Smith, e ditor of the Rhode Island Privacy Journal, see privacy as a necessary element in the development of healthy, active individuals. Without privacy, psychologists say, people tend to become the type of individuals that prisons cultivate--"people indistinguishable in a crowd, unassertive, defeated." Presons systematically assault the privacy of inmates to undermine their confidence and integrity, Smith states (Goode 22).

Of all the aspects of American life where privacy is invaded, the area of medical privacy is the most disturbing. Many people believe that their doctor keeps their medical records and no one else sees them, but that is not true. For example, the private Medical Information Bureau houses electronic files on 15 million Americans which are used by the MIB's member insurance companies to help determine who gets life and health insurance and what they'll pay. This information is shared with medical p ersonnel in managed care networks, and pharmacy-benefit companies can read an individual's file stored in the MIB. Employers can regularly get reports from pharmacies their workers' prescription drug use and employers will pay for their workers' medical histories and the nature of their office visits. In November 1992, the Rite Aid drugstore chain gave the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) a list of employees taking more than $100 worth of drugs a month, enabling a supervisor to single out workers on Retrovir, a drug used to treat AIDS. These workers were then openly discriminated against by SEPTA (Dowd 107-108).

Even though a CNN poll found that 87 percent of Americans believed that "patients should be asked for permission every time any medical information about them is used," the U.S. government and medical establishment think differently. Las t year, a minor amendment to the Health Insurance and Portability Act of 1996 provided for even greater disclosure of our private medical information, labeled "Administrative Simplification (Medical 1)." This would allow medical records to be c omputerized in databases run by the government or corporations. Administration Simplification pushes for the elimination of paper records, and the endorsement of a national I.D. number assigned to each individual so that all medical information on that p erson is compiled in electronic records and easily accessed in the national data bank. This lending library of all an individual's medical records would give the government and large corporations access to a person's confidential records. The unauthoriz ed use and abuse of this information would become widespread. According to TIME Magazine, the trading of health information has already become a $40 billion industry (Medical 1). Administrative Simplification would simply make it worse. To avoid the invasion of an individual's privacy, any regulation concerning patient disclosure should explicitly state that medical patients should have an opportunity to decide who may have access to all or part of their medical record.

As disturbing as invasion of our medical privacy is, the invasion of the privacy of the most vulnerable users of the Internet are children. Children have become big business to marketers, as they are major consumers spending more than $80 billion a year and influence another $160 billion of their parents' purchases, according to the Center for Media Education (Dowd 112). Marketers have developed creative games, contests, and free merchandise offers to pry information (usually by filling out elect ronic entry forms on the Internet) from children about their interests and buying habits. The sale of personal information about children is a relatively new threat to privacy that many parents are not aware of. And it can be dangerous. Last year, a CB S-TV reporter posing as the wife of Richard Davis, on trial for murder of 12 year-old Polly Klaus, was able to obtain a list of the names, sex, addresses, and phone numbers of 5000 California children from the marketing agency, Metromail, who kept extensi ve personal data about children in electronic files (Dowd 112). Parents have not taken responsibility on chaperoning their children's Internet use. Those parents would be surprised to learn methods some merchandisers can use to get information about the ir children online and that the information can be used for any purpose whatsoever. U.S. Representative Bob Franks from New Jersey has introduced legislation before Congress which would ban any sale, purchase, or exchange of personal information about ch ildren on or off the Internet without parental consent (Dowd 112). This would be one of the first privacy policies for the World Wide Web, and one which should be enforced.

When you can see from inside out and from outside in, as Faulkner wrote, then privacy will be gone. This is what is happening in our workplaces, where technology now makes it easy for companies to monitor their employees from punch-in to quitting time. Of course, employers have an interest in monitoring work to ensure efficiency and productivity. But electronic surveillance often goes well beyond legitimate management and becomes a tool for spying on employees. A few years ago, postal workers i n New York City were stunned to find that management had installed video cameras in the restroom stalls. Waiters in a large Boston hotel were secretly videotaped dressing and undressing in their locker room (Workplace 1). Employees are robbed of their d ignity and personal privacy when filmed in this manner. The invention of the "active" badge, a small identification card which employees must wear, helps employers track every move of their workers on a central tracking computer (Long 57). But can employers be productive when they know that every step they make is being watched? In the beginning of our nation, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington may have been concerned over the personal privacy of letters sent by post, but they never coul d have imagined how easily messages between employees are intercepted by employers today when using E-mail in the workplace. Literally, electronic surveillance in the workplace has become a major threat to a person's right to privacy, and unfortunately t here are no laws regulating its use.

The right to privacy is not specifically protected by the Constitution of the United States. But the concept of privacy as a separate right was stated over 100 years ago when Attorney Louis Brandeis wrote an article in the Harvard Law Review urging for a right to privacy, or as he documented "the right to be left alone (Goode 22)." Many Americans who consider privacy important in their lives defend this position. Unfortunately, for decades only a few laws have recognized this ri ght, permitting many invasions of our personal privacy. Today, in this fast paced electronic age, the laws protecting privacy have not kept up with technology. The industry has grown so fast that it has simply overwhelmed many of the safeguards designed to keep information private. Congress does not have the technological knowledge to know that as technology grows more and more people have their privacy invaded. Neither the framers of the Constitution nor the lawmakers or courts have laid an adequate legal foundation for today's electronic world.

Buchsbaum, Herbert. "No Secrets in Cyberspace?" Scholastic Update 2 Sept. 1994: 11-13.

Cooper, Michael. "With Success of Cameras, Concerns over Privacy." New York Times 5

Feb. 1997: B4.

Dowd, Ann Reilly. "Protect Your Privacy." Money Aug. 1997: 107-108, 112.

Everett-Green, Robert. "Cyberspace." 1996 Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year. 1996.

Goode, Stephen. "Are Privacy Rights Still Inalienable?" Insight Magazine on the News 19

Aug. 1996: 18-19.

Houlder, Vanessa. "The Blessing and Curse of E-mail." World Press Review June 1997:

33-34.

Long, Robert Emmet. Rights to Privacy. New York: H.W. Wilson Co., 1997.

"Medical Privacy is Under Attack." [http://www.ACLU.org] 26 Oct. 1997.

"Workplace in America." [http://www.ACLU.org] 26 Oct. 1997.

"We Know You're Reading This." Economist 10 Feb. 1996: 28.

"William Faulkner: On Privacy." The Annals of America Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica,

Inc., 1968.

Buchsbaum, Herbert. "No Secrets in Cyberspace?" Scholastic Update 2 Sept. 1994: 11-13.

Butler, Robert N. "Privacy in the Electronic Age." Geriatrics Jan. 1997: 8-9.

Clavin, Thomas. "Is Your Boss Spying on You?" Ladies' Home Journal April 1995: 82.

Cooper, Michael. "With Success of Cameras, Concerns over Privacy." New York Times 5

Feb. 1997: B4.

Dowd, Ann Reilly. "Protect Your Privacy." Money Aug. 1997: 107-108, 112.

"Electronic Threats to Medical Privacy." New York Times 11 May 1997: A22.

Everett-Green, Robert. "Cyberspace." 1996 Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year. 1996.

Frankel, Mark. "Corporate Snooping 101." New Republic 20 May 1996: 11-12.

Forester, Tom, and Perry Morrison. Computer Ethics. Cambridge: MIT, 1990.

Goode, Stephen. "Are Privacy Rights Still Inalienable?" Insight Magazine on the News 19 Aug.

1996: 18-19.

Houlder, Vanessa. "The Blessing and Curse of E-mail." World Press Review June 1997: 33-34.

"Is Your Computer Spying on You?" Consumer Reports May 1997: 6.

Long, Robert Emmet. Rights to Privacy. New York: H.W. Wilson Co., 1997.

"Medical Privacy Under Attack." [http://www.ACLU.org] 26 Oct. 1997.

Mossberg, Walter A. "Threats to Privacy on-line Become More Worrisome." Wall Street Journal

24 Oct. 1996: B1.

Nagel, Denise M. "The End of Personal Medical Privacy." Wall Street Journal 7 June 1996:

A13.

Posch, Robert J. "E-mail and Voice Mail: Basic Legal Issues for Corporate Management."

Direct Marketing Jan. 1996: 54-57.

Quittner, Joshua. "Invasion of Privacy." Time 25 Aug. 1997: 28-35.

Rosen, Dan. "Is the Clipper Chip Necessary?" [http://acm.cis.udel.edu/~rosen/cscc2.html] Sept.

18, 1997.

Spinello, Richard A. "The End of Privacy." America 4 Jan. 1997: 9-13.

United States. Congress. House. Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Communications and Computer Surveillance, Privacy, and Security. 103 Cong.,

2nd. Sess. Wahington: GPO, 1994.

"Virtual Privacy." Economist. 10 Feb. 1996: 16-17.

Wagner, David. "High-Teach Snoops Get Real Personal." Insight Magazine on the News 19

Aug. 1996: 18-19.

"We Know You're Reading This." Economist 10 Feb. 1996: 28.

"Why Your Health Privacy is Threatened." Consumer Research Magazine April 1997: 24-27.

"William Faulkner: On Privacy." The Annals of America. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica,

Inc., 1968.

"Workplace in America." [http://www.ACLU.org] 26 Oct. 1997.

Andrew Mason

December 4, 1997

Paper #4

Protection of Privacy: A Key Towards Our Future

It is the technology Gold Rush of the 1990's. The Information Age has emerged with speed, excitement, and great promise. The electronic eyes and ears of technology follow us everywhere. There are those enamored with the rush of technology, who b elieve that the best of worlds is one in which everyone can peer into everyone else's lives. In fact, we now live in a world consumed with "the ecstacy of communication" (Karaim 76). Americans line up to reveal their darkest secrets of their m ost intimate moments, or just "hang out their dirty laundry" on the numerous television talk shows. The more exposure, the better. So it may be absurd that we should worry that our privacy is being endangered, our personal life and even our se crets made public. The loss of privacy is on the fast track, and the high-tech Information Age is a willing conspirator. Somebody, somewhere, may know something about you that you'd prefer to keep private: how much you earn a year, what you paid for yo ur car or house, whether you've had certain diseases, what your job history is. Your medical, financial, consumer, and employment records are in computers and may be flying through cyberspace without your knowledge or consent.

Electronic progress has been miraculous, even exciting, but with it problems evolve. One of the greatest is the threat to people's personal privacy. The Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) was developed in the 1980's to give people an easier way to de posit and withdraw cash that they had in the bank. Everyone who has an account is assigned a secret PIN number, but someone in the bank has access to clients' financial records in the electronic database. Another type of new technology is the ele ctronic tolls used on the nation's highways. Drivers can pay tolls electronically with passes that type-off the driver's whereabouts. These records are stored in a databank and can be accessed by state officials. One of the most popular devices today, which is used on toll roads, office buildings, banks, and stores to deter crime is the surveillance camera. But how can a law-abiding citizen protect his privacy when he is constantly being filmed? The cellular phone, a best seller in the 1990's, provid es convenience of calling while on the go. Are the calls a person makes on these phones confidential? No, a call can be intercepted and people who have police scanners can pick up access numbers. Perhaps as popular as the convenience of using the cellu lar phone, is the ease of paying by credit card. But even the cards can be monitored electronically, making everything that a person purchases known to outsiders (Quittner 32-33). Then, of course, there is the Information Superhighway, whose users numbe red 30 million in 1996. As citizens perform more social and commercial transactions in cyberspace, it becomes easier to track down their spending habits, interests, life styles, and beliefs. A computer expert can take any person's Social Security number and find personal details abou this or her life and the history on the Internet (Everett-Green 158).

What is troubling about the issue of privacy, assaults on that privacy by the Information Superhighway, surveillance cameras, electronic tolls, and numerous other high-tech devices, is that there is little, if any, debate about whether such practic es are good for our society. Not many people seem concerned or even shocked that our privacy is being unmercifully eaten away like a digital virus. In a recent poll, 80% of Americans told pollsters they do worry that they have lost all control over thei r personal information, and that they feel powerless to do anything about it. But at the same time, they didn't seem to think that it was that pressing a problem. They completed warranty cards, questionnaires, and surveys on themselves and sent them to companies where their data became public knowledge in the stream of databases. They embraced the use of the Internet for their consumer, financial, and employment needs, relished the idea of e-mail as the fast and easy way to communicate, were frequent u sers of the ATM machines, and were subject to surveillance cameras in public places (We 28). In his cover story for TIME, entitled "The Death of Privacy," Joshua Quittner admits: "I don't know about you, but I do all this willingly because I appreciate what I get in return: the security of a safe parking lot, the convenience of cash when I need it, the improved service of mail order houses that know me well enough to send me catalogs of stuff that interests me. And while I know w e're supposed to feel just awful about giving up our vaunted privacy, I suspect (based on what our pollsters say) that you're as ambivalent about it as I am" (31). This paper will attempt to persuade the reader that privacy as a consumer, employee, and patient is a value in the Information Age, and that there are ways in which an individual can take steps to safeguard his or her own privacy.

Today, do people still value their privacy? Yes, some citizens are finding the infringement on privacy to be dangerous and are taking appropriate action. When an employee put the state of Oregon's entire Department of Motor Vehicles records into a Web site, the residents oif Oregon were very upset. Not everyone was pleased that their neighbor could, with a few clicks of the mouse, discover how man speeding tickets or drunk driving violations they had. They made their voices heard, and the Web s ite was "junked" (Meeks 11). The Immigration Act of 1986 compels parents to register their children for Social Security number before they are even toddlers (Long 52). This Social Security number has become an identification number under which federal agencies amass information from more than eight thousand different record systems about the private lives of U.S. citizens. Everything from an individual's taxes, health care, work, travel, and military records to past scrapes with the law, are available by accessing the Social Security number. On April 9, 1997, the Social Security Administration took action to shut down an Internet site that supplied information about personal income and retirement benefits after hundreds of citizens complaine d that there were not enough safeguards in place to keep people from obtaining confidential information about others (Pear A15). The assault of video cameras invading our privacy has numerous victims. For example, in 1996 waiters sued the management of the large Boston Sheraton Hotel when they discovered hidden surveillance cameras secretly filming them dressing and undressing in their private locker room in the hotel. Management claimed that it was an effort to crack a drug ring. The judge ruled it w as an infringement of privacy (Workplace 1).

As a consumer, I enjoy using the Internet. This digital network has made consumer information more widely and easily available to me. As a student-athlete baseball player, I see on-line ads and offers on the World Wide Web, and receive e-mail so licitations for the newest state of the art baseball equipment and services. I have even filled out on-line questionnaires to help target my consumer interests. However, the other day there was a disturbing message as I browsed my e-mail. I had receive d unwanted junk e-mail from an anonymous sender--a very graphic ad trying to get me to purchase child pornography. Obviously, I had been placed on a marketer's hit list. Site operators linked my questionnaire answers to behavior, perhaps compiling the n ames of young male athletes who might be receiving issues of Playboy, and selling the list to any client whom would pay the price. E-mail provides an instant path back to any potential customer, thus the disgusting ad for child pornography.

What a consumer does not often realize is that every time you visit a Web site, the log files can record what site you came from and everything you do while you're visiting, gathering a lot of data about your interests. If you give your name or e- mail address at the site, say to take advantage of a special offer, the Web site deposits a special file called a "cookie" on your computer. This file can connect your name to any future visits. There's no requirement that you be notified that this information is being gathered and almost no restrictions on its use or sale (Wildstrom 19). The fact that I could be linked to child pornography is very dangerous to any future ambitions that I may have, and as consumer I resent this invasion to my right to privacy. From my experience, I have concluded that the World Wide Web and other networks for hte consumer exist to share. That is their reason for being. It's hardly surprising that the electronic trail this salesperson for pornography found so easily is out there somewhere for almost everyone of us, not just for me. And does the average consumer want to be literally "tracked down' by current technology for interests which may be detrimental to his personal life and career? Many countr ies have self-regulating bodies governing unsolicited advertising on the Internet. The Canadian Direct Marketing Association has a code which allows consumers to request that their names be removed from a mailing list or that their names not be sold to o ther companies. Currently, in the United States, there are few regulations in place to protect the consumer's right to privacy (Privacy 223).

In all the glowing talk about how e-mail, voicemail, the Internet and networked PC's are revolutionizing the corporate landscape, Laura Incus, the director of DePaul University's Institute for Business and professional Ethics, believes there's anot her more troublesome side to the technology gold rush. Today's electronic systems in the workplace allow employers to monitor their employees for "good business." For employers in the workplace, electronic monitoring is one way they can protec t their company's interests and prevent employees from taking advantage of them. As Dr. Incus states:

At a touch of a button, it's possible to view e-mail messages employees send to

one another, listen to voice mail or telephone conversations, and actually see

what's on their monitors while they're sitting at their computer terminals. It's

also possible to view a dressing room or break area using a hidden video camera,

and use surveillance devices to hear what's going on in various parts of an office.

Unfortunately, in an attempt to improve efficiency and reduce risk, people lose

sight of the fact that privacy isn't an abstract principle. When it's abused,

people's lives can be drastically affected (Privacy: Entitlement 74).

One of the most popular forms of communication in business, which has evolved, has been e-mail. Because of the threat to individual privacy, the growth of e-mail litigation is one of the fastest growing legal areas in the United States. When an e mployee at his or her desk uses e-mail to send a colleague a joke that can be offensive to others, can that employee be reprimanded, or even fired? Does that employee have a reasonable expectation that e-mail sent from work is private? In most offices, the e-mail messages travel through a company's computer network and often are inadvertantly saved and read by others. If the messages are offensive ones, like racist or sexist jokes, the original senders of messages can be punished or fired if they did n ot adhere to company business on the company-owned computers. Harsh as it may be, if an employer does not take action after accessing the e-mail, he can be held liable for damages, putting more pressure on management (Kirshenberg 20). To the problem of an employee's privacy in the workplace, dealing with the increase of e-mail litigation, the U.S. government responded, claiming e-mail snooping was a threat to individual privacy. In February 1997, the U.S. Congress was persuaded to pass the Electronic C ommunication Privacy Act (ECPA) which governs unauthorized access to electronic communication and provides civil and criminal penalties for any person who intercepts, uses, or discloses any wire, oral, or electrronic messages. But ECPA does allow an empl oyer to monitor e-mail commnications if the interception is made as an ordinary course of business or with the consent of the employees. An employer must now have a legitimate business purpose and there must be minimal intrusion into an employee's privac y when using e-mail in the workplace (Kirshenberg 21). Employees aren't the only ones who are having their privacy invaded. Hospital patients have their privacy invaded a lot more than employers do.

Our medical records contain a great deal of common information about us, such as height and weight, blood pressures, cuts, and broken bones. These records also contain some of the most sensitive information about who and what we are--about topics such as emotional problems and psychiatric care, sexually transmitted diseases, sexual behaviors, substance abuse, physical abuse, etc. Access to this information must be controlled because any disclosure of our medical records to outsiders can harm us. It may cause social embarrassment or prejudice, or affect our insurability, or limit our ability to get and hold a job. As patients, we have strong expectation that such information will be used only to provide us with effective care, and otherwise will be kept secret. This is reinforced by the Code of Ethics of the American Medical Society and by the federal Privacy Act of 1974. Without confidence in medical privacy, patients may avoid needed health care and physicians may not enter sensitive informa tion in the patient's medical records. This prohibits physicians to help diagnose diseases correctly or to provide the best medical care to a patient (Rindfleisch 94).

Unfortunately, medical information has become a valuable commodity that can be sold and traded. Drug companies and mailing list advertisers use the information to target patients with specific health problems. Therefore, a patient's private medic al record becomes public record as it is stored in databases of hospitals, HMOs, pharmaceutical companies, insurers, and brokers specializing in medical information. Evolving information technologies is breaking down our medical privacy. Currently, no F ederal laws protect the confidentiality of our medical records. However, this year, members of the U.S. Congress introduced an important piece of legislation, the Bennett-Leahy bill known as the "Medical Records Confidentiality Act," that would provide major safeguards to our medical privacy, such as making it illegal to sell medical data to marketers and guaranteeing the right to see and correct our medical records (Long 30).

The right to privacy is not specifically protected by the constitution of the United States. But the concept of privacy as a separate right was stated over a hundred years ago when Attorney Louis Brandeis wrote an article in the Harvard Law Rev iew urging for a right to privacy, or as he documented, "the right to be left alone" (Goode 22). Many Americans who consider privacy important in their lives defend this position. Unfortunately, for decades only a few laws have recognized this right, permitting many invasions of our personal privacy. Today, in this fast-paced electronic age, the laws protecting privacy have not kept up with technology. The industry has grown so fast that it has simply overwhelmed many of the safequards d esigned to keep information private. Congress does not have the technological knowledge to know that as technology grows, more and more people have their privacy invaded. Neither the framers of the constitution nor lawmakers or courts have laid an adequ ate legal foundation for today's electronic world. Therefore, guarding privacy in the Information Age will take more time and attention by consumer, employee, and patient, in other words, by you, yourself. Information privacy--the ability of the individ ual to personally control information about one's self--must be a responsibility for each one of us. The question is what value privacy still has in our lives, and do we want to have a choice between a public world and private world (Karaim 77).

The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU, believes Americans still care very much about their right to privacy. Therefore, they have initiated the "Take Back Your Data Campaign," an awareness campaign that stresses safeguards citizen s can put into action for themselves. By following these rules, a person can protect his or her privacy: 1) Stop giving out you Social Security number to retailers, utilities, credit card companies, and other private businesses; 2.)Opt out of consumer mailing lists; 3.) Stop filling out "warranty registration" cards on products or services you might purchase; 4.) Cross out the parts that contain identifying information or your Social Security number when discarding pay stubs, credit card rece ipts, other such documents, and newspapers; 5.) Just say no to telemarketers; 6.) Be wary about buying mail order; 6.) Pay cash whenever possible; 7.)Take responsibility for your personal data; 8.) Be knowledgeable about your medical records; 9.) Take pre cautions with your e-mail, especially when using it in a public environment; 10.) Avoid leaving footprints on the Net. You're being watched even as you browse (Take 1-2).

There are precautions that a citizen can be persuaded to take to protect his or her privacy in the Information Age. But has the U.S. government done anything to ensure its citizens that privacy can be protected? Yes, the issues of privacy and the consumer, privacy and the workplace, and privacy and medical records have forced the government to investigate encryption as a way of deterring the invasion of personal privacy in the Information Age. Encryption technology is software that can restrict data access to those who have a special software key. To foster the use of encryption to protect personal privacy in cyberspace, the U.S. government has invented the Clipper chip, a $50.00 computer chip that is already used by some government agencies. Inserted into a telephone or computer, the Clipper encodes data for appropriate users, and scrambles it for all other users, thus prohibiting electronic eavesdropping. President Clinton wants the Clipper chip to installed on all computer and communicatio ns equipment to protect personal privacy (Everett-Green 159).

Besides encryption, Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, thinks we need a new government agency--a privacy agency--to sort out the issues. As he states, "We need new legal protections to enforce the privacy act, to keep federal agencies in line, to act as a spokesperson for the Federal government, and to act on behalf of privacy interests." He also believes that there should be a lobby in Washington agitating for protection from various in vasions to citizens' privacy. Rotenberg persuades us to acknowledge the importance of the issue of privacy in the future, "Privacy will be to the information economy of the next century what consumer protection and environmental concerns have been t o the industrial society of the 20th century" (Quittner 35).

We will soon enter the 21st century. To what extent technology develops will depend, among other things, on how enthusiastically people embrace it. Analysts claim that the network revolution will profoundly change our culture. In the December 1, 1997, issue of U.S. News & World Report, the cover story, "TechnoLIFE," proclaims that ground and satellite-based networks linking computers to the Internet will be everywhere in the next century. Networks will not be limited to bus inesses, hospitals, or universities, but networks will extend into our homes, radically changing the way we live. Already, Microsoft and Java experts want to be the first to embed miniature versions of their software into all types of devices in the home , ranging from refrigerators, stoves, and microwaves to telephones, clocks, and doorbells. Today's "dumb" applicances would be transformed into "smart machines" that would virtually do our work for us (Thomas 75).

How would privacy be protected in the TechnoLIFE world? Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Director of the Media Lab, Alex Pentland, states that people will be wearing a wireless body network instead of having networked servers in the outside world. All your personal, critical data will actually be stored on your body for you to control. You elect when to transmit data to outside networks on a need-to-know bases with smart cards in the form of watches, rings, or necklaces. Wearable compute rs, tiny in comparison with today's hardware, will be networked together via clothes and skin, since salty skin is an excellent conductor of low frequency radio waves. Already, the MIT Media Lab and Sony are working on the body network idea, embedding sm all hardware in headbands, shoes, shirts, and jeans. Voices will replace keyboards and gestures will replace moving mie (Thomas 80).

Amazing as it all appears, researchers are putting a priority on the right to personal privacy while forgoing ahead with technology. The right of privacy will continue in the 21st Century. As Historian Clinton Rossiter states, "The free man is private man, the man who still keeps his thoughts and judgements entirely to himself, who feels no overriding compulsion to share everything of value with others, not even those he loves and trusts. Privacy is a special kind of independence" (Goo de 23). It is inevitable that Americans will value stronger privacy protection while increasing their use of electronic technology.

Everett-Green, Robert. "Cyberspace." 1996 Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year. 1996.

Goode, Stephen. "Are Privacy Rights Still Inalienable?" Insight Magazine on the News 19 Aug.

1996: 18-19.

Karaim, Reed. "The Invasion of Privacy." Civilization Oct./Nov. 1996: 70-77.

Kirshenberg, Seth. "No Joking Matter." Public Management July 1997: 20-21.

Long, Robert Emmet. Rights to Privacy. New York: H.W. Wilson Co., 1997.

Meeks, Brock N. "Privacy Lost, Anytime, Anywhere." Communications of the ACM Aug. 1997:

11-13.

Pear, Robert. "Social Security Closes On-Line Site, Citing Risk to Privacy." New York Times 10

April 1997: 15A.

"Privacy and the Internet: Intrusion, Surveillance and Personal Data." International Review of

Law, Computers & Technology Oct. 1996: 219-235.

"Privacy: Entitlement or Illusion?" Personnel Journal May 1996: 74-81.

Quittner, Joshua. "Invasion of Privacy." Time 25 Aug. 1997: 28-35.

Rinderfleisch, Thomas C. "Privacy, Information Technology, and Health Care."

Communications of the ACM Aug. 1997: 93-100.

"Take Back Your Data Campaign." [http://www.ACLU.org] 26 Oct. 1997.

Thomas, Susan Gregory. "the Networked Family." U.S. News & World Report 1 Dec. 1997:

66-80.

"We Know You're Reading This." Economist 10 Feb. 1996: 28.

Wildstrom, Stephen H. "They're Watching You Online." Business Week 11 Nov. 1996: 19.

"Workplace in America." [http://www.ACLU.org] 26 Oct 1997.

Buchsbaum, Herbert. "No Secrets in Cyberspace?" Scholastic Update 2 Sept. 1994: 11-13.

Butler, Robert N. "Privacy in the Electronic Age." Geriatrics Jan. 1997: 8-9.

Clavin, Thomas. "Is Your Boss Spying on You?" Ladies' Home Journal April 1995: 82.

Cooper, Michael. "With Success of Cameras, Concerns over Privacy." New York Times 5 Feb.

1997: B4.

Dowd, Ann Reilly. "Protect Your Privacy." Money Aug. 1997: 107-108, 112.

"Electronic Threats to Medical Privacy." New York Times 11 May 1997: A22.

Everett-Green, Robert. "Cyberspace." 1996 Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year. 1996.

Frankel, Mark. "Corporate Snooping 101." New Republic 20 May 1996: 11-12.

Forrester, Tom, and Perry Morrison. Computer Ethics. Cambridge: MIT, 1990.

Goode, Stephen. "Are Privacy Rights Stil Inalienable?" Insight Magazine on the News 19 Aug.

1996: 18-19.

Houlder, Vanessa. "The Blessing and Curse of E-mail." World Press Review June 1997: 33-34.

"Is Your Computer Spying on You?" Consumer Reports May 1997: 6.

Karaim, Reed. "The Invasion of Privacy." Civilization Oct./Nov. 1996: 70-77.

Kirshenberg, Seth. "No Joking Matter." Public Management July 1997: 20-21.

Long, Robert Emmet. Rights to Privacy. New York: H.W. Wilson Co, 1997.

"Medical Privacy Under Attack." [http://www.ACLU.org] 26 Oct. 1997.

Meeks, Brock N. "Privacy Lost, Anytime Anywhere." Communications of the ACM Aug. 1997:

11-13.

Mossberg, Walter A. "Threats to Privacy on-line Become More Worrisome." Wall Street Journal

24 Oct. 1996: B1.

Nagel, Denise M. "The End of Personal Medical Privacy." Wall Street Journal 7 June 1996: A13.

Pear, Robert. "Social Security Closes On-Line Site, Citing Risk to Privacy." New York Times

10 April 1997: 15A.

Posch, Robert J. "E-mail and Voice Mail: Basic Legal Issues for Corporate Management." Direct

Marketing Jan. 1996: 54-57.

"Privacy and the Internet: Intrusion, Surveillance and Personal Data." International Review of

Law, Computers & Technology Oct. 1996: 219-235.

"Privacy: Entitlement or Illusion?" Personnel Journal May 1996: 74-81.

Quittner, Joshua. "Invasion of Privacy." Time 25 Aug. 1997: 28-35.

Rinderfleisch, Thomas C. "Privacy, Information Technology, and Health Care."

Commnications of the ACM Aug. 1997: 93-100.

Rosen, Dan. "Is the Clipper Chip Necessary?" [http://acm.cis.udel.edu/~rosen/cscc2.html]

Spinello, Richard A. "The End of Privacy." America 4 Jan. 1997: 9-13.

"Take Back Your Data Campaign." [http://www.ACLU.org] 26 Oct.

1997 United States. Congress. House. Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Communications and Computer Surveillance, Privacy, and Security. 103 Cong., 2nd

Sess. Wahington: GPO, 1994.

Thomas, Susan Gregory. "the Networked Family." U.S. News & World Report 1 Dec. 1997:

66-80.

"Virtual Privacy." Economist 10 Feb. 1996: 28.

Wagner, David. "High-Tech Snoops Get Real Personal." Insight Magazine on the News 19 Aug.

1996: 18-19.

"We Know You're Reading This." Economist 10 Feb. 1996: 28.

"Why Your Health Privacy is Threatened." Consumer Research Magazine April 1997: 24-27.

Wildstrom, Stephen H. "They're Watching You Online." Business Week 11 Nov. 1996: 19.

"William Faulkner: On Privacy." The Annals of America Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica,

Inc., 1968.

"Workplace in America." [http://www.ACLU.org] 26 Oct. 1997.