Privacy. An Intercultural Perspective

Ethics and Information Technology (Impact Factor: 0.56). 02/2005; 7(1):37-47. DOI: 10.1007/s10676-005-4407-4

ABSTRACT This paper deals with intercultural aspects of privacy, particularly with regard to differences between Japanese and Western
conceptions. It starts with a reconstruction of the genealogy of Western subjectivity and human dignity as the basic assumptions
underlying Western views on privacy. An analysis of the Western concept of informational privacy is presented. The Japanese
topic of ‘‘denial of self” (Musi) as well as the concepts of Seken, Shakai and Ikai (as analyzed by the authors of the companion piece on privacy in Japan) give rise to intercultural comparisons. The paper
addresses the question of privacy in cyberspace and mass media. Finally the question of freedom of speech is related to the
Japanese concepts of Ohyake and Watakusi.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Individuals can increasingly collect data about their habits, routines, and environment using ubiquitous technologies. Running specialized software, personal devices such as phones and tablets can capture and transmit users’ location, images, motion, and text input. The data collected by these devices are both personal (identifying of an individual) and participatory (accessible by that individual for aggregation, analysis, and sharing). Such participatory personal data provide a new area of inquiry for the information sciences. This article presents a review of literature from diverse fields, including information science, technology studies, surveillance studies, and participatory research traditions to explore how participatory personal data relate to existing personal data collections created by both research and surveillance. It applies three information perspectives—information policy, information access and equity, and data curation and preservation—to illustrate social impacts and concerns engendered by this new form of data collection. These perspectives suggest a set of research challenges for information science posed by participatory personal data. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 10/2012; 63(10):1905-1915. · 2.01 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The predominant analysis of privacy on Facebook focuses on personal information revelation. This paper is critical of this kind of research and introduces an alternative analytical framework for studying privacy on Facebook, social networking sites and web 2.0. This framework is connecting the phenomenon of online privacy to the political economy of capitalism—a focus that has thus far been rather neglected in research literature about Internet and web 2.0 privacy. Liberal privacy philosophy tends to ignore the political economy of privacy in capitalism that can mask socio-economic inequality and protect capital and the rich from public accountability. Facebook is in this paper analyzed with the help of an approach, in which privacy for dominant groups, in regard to the ability of keeping wealth and power secret from the public, is seen as problematic, whereas privacy at the bottom of the power pyramid for consumers and normal citizens is seen as a protection from dominant interests. Facebook’s privacy concept is based on an understanding that stresses self-regulation and on an individualistic understanding of privacy. The theoretical analysis of the political economy of privacy on Facebook in this paper is based on the political theories of Karl Marx, Hannah Arendt and Jürgen Habermas. Based on the political economist Dallas Smythe’s concept of audience commodification, the process of prosumer commodification on Facebook is analyzed. The political economy of privacy on Facebook is analyzed with the help of a theory of drives that is grounded in Herbert Marcuse’s interpretation of Sigmund Freud, which allows to analyze Facebook based on the concept of play labor (= the convergence of play and labor).
    Information. 01/2011;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose – There are a lot of discussions about privacy in relation to contemporary communication systems (such as Facebook and other “social media” platforms), but discussions about privacy on the internet in most cases misses a profound understanding of the notion of privacy and where this notion is coming from. The purpose of this paper is to challenge the liberal notion of privacy and explore foundations of an alternative privacy conception. Design/methodology/approach – A typology of privacy definitions is elaborated based on Giddens' theory of structuration. The concept of privacy fetishism that is based on critical political economy is introduced. Limits of the liberal concept of privacy are discussed. This discussion is connected to the theories of Marx, Arendt and Habermas. Some foundations of an alternative privacy concept are outlined. Findings – The notion of privacy fetishism is introduced for criticizing naturalistic accounts of privacy. Marx and Engels have advanced four elements of the critique of the liberal privacy concept that were partly taken up by Arendt and Habermas: privacy as atomism that advances; possessive individualism that harms the public good; legitimizes and reproduces the capitalist class structure; and capitalist patriarchy. Research limitations/implications – Given the criticisms advanced in this paper, the need for an alternative, socialist privacy concept is ascertained and it is argued that privacy rights should be differentiated according to the position individuals occupy in the power structure, so that surveillance makes transparent wealth and income gaps and company's profits and privacy protects workers and consumers from capitalist domination. Originality/value – The paper contributes to the establishment of a concept of privacy that is grounded in critical political economy. Owing to the liberal bias of the privacy concept, the theorization of privacy has thus far been largely ignored in critical political economy. The paper contributes to illuminating this blind spot.
    Journal of Information Communication and Ethics in Society 01/2011; 9.