NEGATIVE-PRIVACY-GENERAL 99

PRIVACY IS AN OVER-CLAIMED VALUE FULL OF VAGUENESS

PRIVACY IS THE MOST OVERSTATED ISSUE IN PUBLIC POLICY

Alan Ehrenhalt, Governing Magazine, May, 1999;Pg. 7 TITLE: THE MISGUIDED ZEAL OF THE PRIVACY LOBBY // acs-VT2001

But I will tell you one secret belief I have that I'm usually careful not to blurt out in polite company. It's this: I think privacy is the single most overrated issue in the entire lexicon of public policy--state, local, federal or anyplace else. Of all the dangers that this society faces as it starts the new millennium, one of the most remote is the risk that America will become an Orwellian police state, watching everything citizens do and taking down every word they say. And yet people all over the country lose a lot of sleep every night worrying about it.

PRIVACY IS A VALUE WHICH CAN BE EQUIVOCATED OVER AND USED FOR WHATEVER YOU WANT

Richard A. Epstein National Review, September 27, 1999, TITLE: Privacy, Please; Thinking about a troublesome concept. // acs-VT2001

For the time being, we are in overdrive on the question of privacy. The term can be invoked by those who believe, as I do, in the classical virtues of limited government, and with equal earnestness by the champions of the modern welfare state-who first undermine the traditional use of state power to prevent harm and then, in the next breath, see no limits on the power of the state to take from A and to give to B in the name of redistribution. The classical liberal and the modern welfarist theories of government are utterly antithetical to each other in aspiration and effect. The equivocation over privacy takes us first to one side of the line, and then quickly to the other. Both in theory and in practice, however, we have to choose our definition of privacy as we choose our theory of government.

PRIVACY MEANS VERY DIFFERENT THINGS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE

KATIE HAFNER The New York Times, November 11, 1999, SECTION: Section G; Page 1; TITLE: Do You Know Who's Watching You? Do You Care? // acs-EE2001

For all the attention it gets, privacy is an elusive concept. It means something different to everyone, and when it comes to behavior, both as consumers and as citizens, people draw the line at different points on the privacy spectrum.

At one extreme are the privacy fundamentalists, who denounce the potential abuse on the part of direct marketers and their increasingly sophisticated personal-profiling techniques. Privacy absolutists abhor supermarket discount cards and are vigilant about keeping their names off lists of any kind.

At the other end of the spectrum are people who simply don't care who knows what about them. They figure that privacy is a thing of the past anyway, so why fight?

Most Americans, however, seem to fall somewhere in between. They are willing to part with personal information as long as they get something in return, and as long as they know what is to be done with the information. They are happy to carry supermarket discount cards. They are annoyed when they get new computers and must re-enter all the information needed for one-click ordering at Amazon.com.

PRIVACY IS A VAGUE CONCEPT WHICH IS USED TO SUPPORT OTHER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA

Richard A. Epstein National Review, September 27, 1999, TITLE: Privacy, Please; Thinking about a troublesome concept. // acs-VT2001

How should we apply the traditional construct of privacy rights to the lengthening list of challenges to privacy in the cyber-age?

The privacy principle is invoked in so many different contexts that it is hard for us to know which claims to accept and which to reject. If you think abortion should be legal, it might be because you believe in a woman's constitutional right to privacy. If you want to make sure your employer or your insurer never sees your medical records, invoke privacy. If you want to keep unwanted solicitors and callers from your doorstep, privacy is the key principle yet again.