The right to privacy is acknowledged as a fundamental

human right. The right to privacy can be globally recognised

and linked to a sense of self. Still, the definition of

privacy itself can prove extremely difficult, particularly in

this time of information. I have attempted several times to

get a concrete explanation of privacy and every definition I

seem to come across falls a little short, when taking all of

the technological advancements into account. The explosion of

computers, the internet, mobile phones and the omnipresence of

devices with the ability to send and receive information is

unbelievable. This of course lends to the difficulty in

attempting to define privacy.

Most people would define privacy by stating that there

are certain aspects of their life that are no one else’s

business but their own. The concept of privacy has been put

forward several times that privacy is an individual’s right to

be left alone. Privacy has a direct link to our sense of self,

that our bodies, actions and thoughts are our own. The control

that we possess over who has or does not have access to

information personal to ourselves, predominantly information

that would be directly linked to the ability to forming social

1

relationships with other people. This is because we are

naturally social creatures and our interactions with other

people are part of our sense of self, therefore the concept of

privacy is intertwined with the very notion of who and what we

see ourselves as.

Charles Fried, an American lawyer, narrated the importance of

privacy as a right, with the suggestion that invasions of

people’s privacy “injure them in their very humanity”

(1968:475).In an article published in ‘‘Philosophy and Public

Affairs’’ wrote by Judith Jarvis Thomson, a moral philosopher

and metaphysician, she proposes that the right to privacy is

derived from other rights, particularly an individual’s right

over their own body and their own property. However, Thomson’s

concept of privacy as a by-product of other rights has been

criticised. In the book Critical Moral Liberalism: Theory and Practice,

Jeffrey H. Reiman, author and professor of philosophy,

contends that an individual’s right over their own person and

property are expressions of the right to privacy and are, in

actual fact, derived from it and not the other way round.

Furthermore, Reiman suggests that Thomson’s theory of privacy

as an aspect of other personal and property rights lessens the

2

actual value of privacy. He goes on to suggest that the right

to privacy protects some unique interest of ours that goes

beyond the degree of protection offered by personal and

property rights. In another article in the “Philosophy and

Public Affairs” entitled “Why is Privacy so Important”, James

Rachels, an American philosopher who specialized in ethics,

also criticises Thomson’s privacy hypothesis as inadequate

because he suggests that situations could arise where an

individual’s right to privacy could be violated without

violating either their rights over their body or property.

Rachels gives the example of someone finding out very personal

information about an individual such as a medical condition

and passing this information on to other people. He argues

that such a circumstance would not violate that individual’s

rights over their person or property, but it would still be a

violation of their right to privacy. As a result, while an

individual’s right over their own person or property are

important rights, which can be connected to privacy, these

rights do not always overlap with the right to privacy. In

relation to Reiman, Rachels suggests that an individual’s

right to privacy should be valued in its own right because it

3

protects some other special interest. Rachels proposes that

the value of privacy is derived from the notion that

there is a close connection between our ability to control who has access to us and to information about us,and our ability to create and maintain different sorts ofsocial relationships with different people (1975:326). The growth in social media and the copious amount of

information that we ourselves share with the general public on

things like Twitter, Facebook, SnapChat etc. is leading to

varying classifications of privacy. Privacy is a very diverse

concept it includes, cultural, social, legal, political,

economic and technical aspects. The difficulty in attempting

to define the concept of privacy is well documented, as has

been shown, yet the emergence of Privacy Enhancing

Technologies (PETs) is becoming ever-present. The 14th annual

Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium stated that their aim

this coming year was to address “the design and realization of

privacy services for the Internet and other data systems and

communication networks by bringing together anonymity and

privacy experts from around the world to discuss recent

advances and new perspectives.” (Clarke 2013).

PETs are a range of computer tools, applications and

mechanisms which, when used in conjunction with online

4

services or applications, allow the user to protect the

privacy of their personally identifiable information. The

goals of PETs are to allow users control over their personal

data, sent to and used by internet service providers and

merchants, data mining companies etc. PETs also aim to

minimise personal data collection and usage and give the user

a degree of anonymity while online. They strive to achieve

informed consent about giving personal data and attempt to

provide the possibility to negotiate the terms and conditions

of giving their personal data to online service providers and

merchants through the channels of data handling and privacy

policy negotiation.

In recent years, PETs have gained significant momentum

in academia and industry, in both theoretical and practical

aspects of privacy technologies. This is due to the recent

reliance of people on the internet and the easily accessed,

elaborate databases that have been set up online to store and

sell off personal information. It has become virtually

impossible to remove your cyber footprint and in recent years

with phone directories, newspaper articles, public access

government archives etc. All becoming so readily accessible

5

online the sheer amount of information available to people is

terrifying, financial scams are becoming more and more

prevalent. An intriguing factor that I have come across in my

research is the fact that governments are the biggest consumer

and producers in this data collection business. This would

obviously make them a privacy threat. There are an unsettling

amount of examples of privacy leakage that has occurred

concerning government files containing personal information on

citizens. One of the main problems is that today’s governments

have a vast number of laws, surveillance agencies, and other

tools for extracting private information from the populace.

Furthermore, a great many government employees have access to

this valuable information, so there are bound to be some

workers who will abuse it.

It has been reported that over 120 data storage devices,

including laptops and portable memory devices have been lost

or stolen from Irish government departments since 2002, and 16

laptops belonging to the Comptroller and Auditor general have

been stolen since 1999. Many of these devices contained

personal and sensitive information of state employees and the

general public, which in some cases was not stored in an

6

encrypted or otherwise appropriately secure format. While

incidences of theft may not be entirely preventable, security

breaches and inappropriate use of personal information

pertaining to the general public can still occur within

government departments and other organisations. It was

revealed that personal information held by the Department of

Social and Family Affairs, which related to an individual who

had won the lottery, was accessed by over 100 staff members of

the Department of Social and Family Affairs, only 34 of who

had a legitimate reason to access the information. In the UK

the potential for such risks was highlighted, when in 2007

discs containing the personal records of 25 million

individuals, including their dates of birth, addresses, bank

accounts and national insurance numbers were lost in the post.

Of course, I could not leave out when President Clinton’s

Democratic administration including the FBI found themselves

with unauthorized files on hundreds of Republican opponents in

the “Filegate” scandal. All of these figures and facts are

terrifying, the reality is that we entrust this information to

people with the assumption that our personal information will

be safeguarded in some way and not used in any other capacity

7

than initially intended. We must wonder why all that

information is being stored and not destroyed. The likelihood

of this to me would be that our information is being retained

in the hope it may be used in the future for a profitable

measure which would in turn make this gathering of information

a type of surveillance on the population. I must include

another recent example of this unusual level of information

that governments appear to hold on file about extremely

personal information, in November last year a Canadian author

was denied entering into the US because of a hospitalization

during 2012 from a suicide attempt. She suffered ongoing

depression and received clinical treatment. In November 2013

she was denied access to America and told it would take the

permission of US government-approved doctor and around $500 in

fees in order to enter the country. The lady in question had

travelled between Canada and the States several times, upon

this attempt she was told by a border agent that her

hospitalization in 2012 warranted extra attention and that

they have the right to deny entry with a physical or mental

threat that may cause a threat to safety, property of welfare

of the state. Although all of this seems perfectly legitimate,

8

this ladies hospitalization did not involve legal authorities

and she was deemed healthy enough by her own doctors to

travel, therefore one must ask the question, how did those

boarder officials have access to that ladies medical record?

And in turn how much access do they really have? Medical

records are supposed to private and confidential and not

readily available to boarder controls unless you are in

isolation and escaped or something.

One must notice a similarity of these examples and Michel

Foucault’s ideas on surveillance, and how surveillance based

on a system of permanent registration. This was brought up in

Foucault’s book Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Modern Prison. Foucault

talks about the measures taken when the plague first appeared.

The measures taken by the magistrates at the time would be

seen by a modern reader as extreme and inhumane. Complete

control was given to the magistrates, this in turn lead

everyone being forced to declare and be declared for with no

exceptions and nothing allowed to be concealed.

In 2013 David Cameron, the British Prime minister

announced an opt in law for accessing porn. This would mean

that any user would have to contact their internet provider

9

and select the option to be able to access porn on their

internet. This is a clear declaration and obvious way of

removing anonymity from the internet which was meant to be a

private and secure place. Foucault notes that in this town

“The registration of the pathological must be constantly

centralized.” ( Foucault 1977:196) , In relation to this, it

is clear that in Britain they are classifying people that

watch porn as pathological and in need of registration. I must

admit my study of internet privacy has at times made me wonder

the very nature of our own security being in any way

associated with the internet and its ridiculously mysterious

mechanisms. The more aware people seem to becoming of the

internet and its inability to be monitored the more internet

privacy and security seems to elude us. While reading back

over my lecture notes a particular quote stood out “power

works best when it is invisible. When power manifests itself

it becomes something to rebel against”. This reminds me very

much of the internet and the group Anonymous that seem to be

the vigilantes when it comes to the federal regulation of the

government. They appear to rebel against any kind of

limitation put on the unstoppable force that is the internet

10

and then seamlessly disappear again. Although a few members

have been arrested for allegedly committing offenses against

the state. This kind of internet vigilantism appears to be the

norm online and with this large companies are often genuinely

scared into conforming to the requests of the group. I have

heard several stories of large betting companies being

blackmailed around large racing events that if they don’t part

with a substantial amount of money they will have their

websites hacked and shut down. The majority of these companies

comply with these organisations amidst fears of loss of

profit. The sheer volume of internet usage and the power it

holds over everyday life, really does require PETs. Although

to be fair even after spending months a research trying to

figure out exactly what they are, it is apparent that because

the very nature of the internet and the technology and the

privacy that goes along with it, is so vast and ever changing

it is only possible to state that the majority of these

technologies are being formulated by ideas that really do want

to limit our vulnerability while on the internet, mainly for

an obvious gap in the market and spurned on by financial

motives!

11

Foucault mentioned the society of security which can be

determined when power is dominated by the technology of

security. These databases and PETs which are being formulated

and advanced in order to protect our basic right to privacy is

leading into the simple fact that the internet itself is

becoming a space, that will in my opinion, due to the research

I have carried out for this project (which has involved me

reading copious journal and manifestos and government issued

documents about our so-called online security) be dominated by

security. This in turn leads to a question posed in class upon

the study of Foucault and his lectures, does security produce

a concept of normal behaviour where abnormal is not allowed

exist. For instance in America certain people will be targeted

for this constant internet surveillance based simply on their

internet browsing history. Also people in China and US

citizens are being told that occasionally their Skype sessions

might be monitored and recorded for something referred to as

‘Metadata’. Of course when governments are questioned about

such apparently evasive and shifty procedures all we get in

response is that they were trying to protect their citizen and

promoting the common good. The reference to the common good is

12

referred to constantly in all these governmental documents

about internet security and privacy. Even in the Irish Council

on Biometrics we are given every assurance that our personal

data will not be miss-used unless it is necessary for the

common good, yet no where do I see any definition for the

common good made apparent. Although the majority of us have

figured out that clearing your internet history is advisable

does one realise that not deleting your history actually

affects prices of things like plane tickets where the site can

recognise your IP address and browser and will actually keep

putting the rice of flights up every time you check them until

you clear your history.

Foucault’s Panopticon reminds me of Facebook or SnapChat

and how we monitor what and when we put things up or make

public as we are aware of what others will see and think about

us and how it will affect us later on. This constant awareness

of being monitored makes us censor our own behaviour online.

This is an example of what I would classify as biopower. It

mirrors what Foucault said when he was talking about the

Bentham Panopticon and how the constant thought of being

monitored forced an inmate into a state of conscious and

13

permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of

power.

Anonymity is often used as a tool for privacy and is one of

the main ways PETs attempt to maintain and guard our personal

identity information. Today, home HIV tests rely on anonymous

lab testing, Garda tip lines provide anonymity to entice

informants and/or witnesses, journalists and anthropologists

take great care to protect the anonymity of their confidential

participants and there is special legal protection and

recognition for medical practitioners and members of the

judicial system to protect clients and patients’

confidentiality and anonymity.

Outside of the Internet, anonymity is widely accepted and

recognized as a valuable feature in today’s society. Over the

years society has continually accepted and adhered to the fact

that the need for privacy and anonymity for certain things are

in place for good reason and are therefore protected and

valued, this would make an obvious next step that such values

would be carried over to the internet. Most of these privacy

enhancing companies are attempting to regain some of the

anonymity lost to the internet. There are a number of

14

situations where we can already legitimate use of Internet

anonymity such as the website spunout.ie which helps people

suffering depression to cope without feeling vulnerable to

social stigma. On the other hand, illicit use of anonymity is

all too common on the Internet. At times, anonymity tools are

used to distribute copyrighted software without permission. We

have all streamed a movie illegally or downloaded an illegal

copy of a song. Widespread availability of anonymity will mean

that site administrators will have to rely more on first-line

defences and direct security measures rather than on the

deterrent of tracing. Providers of anonymity services will

also need to learn to prevent and manage abuse more

effectively. This is in part of what these PETs are trying to

help with.

It is being put into place in Ireland with the internet

provider Eircom, who have stated that any user found to be

illegally downloading will have their internet, removed and

will be reported to authorities. Although it is also worth

mentioning that the majority of internet holders have since

changed internet providers prior to the implementation of this

sanction or the savvy internet users found a way around this

15

by using proxy sites and also published their information and

data sharing websites like Reddit or 4chan. This constant

change in technology is the reason these PETs exist and there

is new markets for HotPETs. These are classed as measures put

forward to attempt to deal with up to date or hot topics on

internet risks such as help for privacy protection on social

networking sites, interdisciplinary privacy: usability,

economics, legal issues, cultural perspectives, user studies,

real world impact of PETs, economics of privacy, anonymous

communications and publishing systems, censorship resistance,

cryptographic protocols with application to privacy etc. In a

market of such rapid change and innovation there will always

be away to get around these privacy technologies. It is this

fact alone that is making PETs such an extremely current and

growing industry. The majority of these PETs and the people

developing them are doing so with such rigour because they

want to try and prevent judicial intervention in technology

which I assume would lead to a decrease in whatever profit

they are gaining.

This wish for the removal of governmental surveillance

and interference with technological data is coming very much

16

to the forefront of many of the most popular websites used

today. An open ended letter was sent by Twitter Inc., LinkedIn

Corp. and AOL Inc. joined Google Inc., Apple Inc., Yahoo Inc.,

Facebook Inc. and Microsoft Corp. in the push for tighter

controls over electronic espionage. These companies represent

the most influential and world renowned companies on the

internet at the moment. As the companies' services and

products have become more deeply ingrained in society, they

have become integral parts of the economy. Their prosperity

also provides them with the fiscal stance to pay for lobbyists

and fund campaign contributions that sway public policy.

Although the campaign is apparently directed at governments

all around the world, the U.S. is clearly the main target."The

balance in many countries has tipped too far in favour of the

state and away from the rights of the individual...rights that

are enshrined in our Constitution," the letter stated. "This

undermines the freedoms we all cherish. It's time for a

change."Civil liberties aren't the only thing at stake. The

main reason these technology companies have become such a hive

of information for policing authorities is that they routinely

store copious amounts of personal identity information as a

17

way of targeting their advertisements. By analyzing search

requests, internet browsing habits, social networking posts

and even the content of emails, the companies are able to

determine, things like the type of digital ads to show

individual users. The NSA revelations have raised fears that

people might shy away from some Internet services or share

less information about themselves. Such an alteration in

information availability would make it more difficult for

companies to increase their ad revenue and in turn, boost

their stock prices.

The increase in our fascination and usage of the internet

is undeniably an extremely marketable and innovative

commodity. The obvious need for some type of regulation and

monitoring of it is blatantly necessary, especially when we

have so many examples of such badly secured data bases. Yet,

if we are to avoid a foucauldian type securitization where the

gaze is constantly in action through documentation and

surveillance of our most secret preferences we must find some

way to manage this regulation without limiting the

possibilities available to us from such a truly wonderful hive

of information and possibilities and in turn affecting our

18

human rights on privacy, freedom of speech and access to the

availability of information. I do believe that a lot of these

privacy technologies that are being discussed and created will

lead to more transparency in the way we use the internet. Yet,

if governments and companies’ hell bent on censoring the

internet due to financial reasoning and utilising information

for their own gain we will inevitably be forced to strictly

monitor and limit what we are allowed to know. Technology and

easily available information will always be something that

will require discussion as the speed in which it evolves is

mind-blowing. But as we all know nothing in life is free and

while keeping that in mind are we sacrificing our personal

information for the right and privilege to gain access to

unlimited information at our fingertips?

19

AOL Inc., Apple Inc., Facebook Inc., Google Inc., LinkedIn

Inc., Microsoft Inc., Twitter Inc., Yahoo Inc.

2013. Reform Government Surveillance. Electronic Document.

http://reformgovernmentsurveillance.com/ accessed December 15,

2013

Clarke, Jeremy

2013 Privacy Enhancing Symposium. Electronic Document.

http://petsymposium.org/2014/index.php Accessed November 22,

2013

Foucault, Michel

1977 Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Modern Prison. A.

Sheridan, Trans. New York: Random House, Inc.

Fried, Charles

1968 Privacy. Yale Law Journal 77(3): 475-493.

Rachels, James

1975 Why Privacy is so Important. Philosophy and Public

Affairs 4(4): 323-333.

20

Reiman, Jeffrey H.

1997 Critical Moral Liberalism: Theory and Practice. Maryland:

Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Thompson, Judith Jarvis

1975 The Right to Privacy. Philosophy and Public Affairs 4(4):

295-314.

21