Markets and privacy
Markets and privacy
复制标题
DOI：
10.1145/234215.234476
复制
发表时间：
1996-09-01
影响因子：
22.7
通讯作者：
Laudon, KC
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Laudon, KC
本文的前提是，为了确保2000年以后的个人隐私保护，我们应该考虑基于个人信息所有权的市场机制和国家信息市场（NIM），在该市场中，个人可以获得公平的补偿，以使用关于自己的信息。这一步骤是必要的，因为技术变革、制度力量和日益过时的隐私保护法律的基础带来了对隐私的持续侵蚀。这些力量共同侵蚀了个人对自身信息流动的控制。今天，侵犯个人隐私的成本远远低于侵犯隐私的真正社会成本。虽然基于市场的方法不能解决我们所有的隐私问题，但它们可以帮助加强个人对个人信息的控制，同时加强（而不是取代）隐私保护的法律的基础。最后，隐私应该很容易实现，并且应该尽可能多地将私人个人信息用于商业目的，因为这是社会效率。如今，个人隐私昂贵且供不应求，而对个人信息的使用既浪费又低效。隐私是个人的道德要求，不受打扰，并控制有关自己的信息流[5，7，12，23，24]。隐私也是一种社会价值，反映在宪法等建国文件中，也是一种政治声明，反映在法律中。还有一个隐私的行为现实处理个人信息的日常惯例。隐私的行为现实与道德主张、政治声明和法律是分开的，必须单独考虑。当个人声称有关他们的信息是私人的，他们通常意味着他们不希望与他人共享信息，或者他们个人希望控制这些信息的传播，与一些人共享，而不是与其他人共享。这些主张有时得到文化假设的有力支持，使个人或组织否认这些主张是可憎的。然而，将这些普遍的文化价值陈述和个人对信息控制的要求转化为法律是困难的，因为所有社会都涉及政府和私人组织为了国家安全、公共卫生、执法、商业或其他有价值的社会目的而要求获得个人信息的相互竞争的要求。在美国法律中，隐私保护有三个主要来源：
The premise of this article is that to ensure the protection of individual privacy beyond 2000 we should consider market-based mechanisms based on individual ownership of personal information and a National Information Market (NIM) in which individuals can receive fair compensation for the use of information about themselves. This step is necessary because of the continued erosion of privacy brought about by technological change, institutional forces, and the increasingly outdated legal foundation of privacy protection. Together, these forces have eroded individuals’ control over the flow of information about themselves. Today, the cost of invading individual privacy is far lower than the true social cost of invading that privacy. While market-based approaches cannot solve all our privacy problems, they can help strengthen individual control over personal information while strengthening (not replacing) the legal foundations of privacy protection. In the end, privacy should be easily achieved, and there should be as much use of private personal information for commercial purposes as is socially efficient. Today, personal privacy is expensive and in short supply, while the use of personal information is wasteful and inefficient. Privacy is the moral claim of individuals to be left alone and to control the flow of information about themselves [5, 7, 12, 23, 24]. Privacy is also a social value reflected in founding documents, like the Constitution, and a political statement reflected in the laws. There is also a behavioral reality of privacy—the day-to-day routine practices for handling personal information. The behavioral reality of privacy stands apart from the moral claims, political statements, and laws—and must be considered separately. When individuals claim that information about them is private, they generally mean they do not want the information shared with others or they personally would like to control the dissemination of this information, sharing it with some but not with others. These claims are sometimes strongly supported by cultural assumptions, making it odious for individuals or organizations to deny the claims. Nevertheless, translating these general cultural value statements and individual claims to information control into law has been difficult because all societies involve competing claims by government and private organizations demanding access to information about individuals for the sake of national security, public health, law enforcement, commerce, or other valued social ends. There are three primary sources of privacy protection in US law: