Is Your Privacy Harmed If You Believe Others May Have Seen Private Info... Even If They Haven't?
from the privacy-questions dept
We've noted, repeatedly, that in various data breach cases, courts have consistently found that if the data was exposed but then not actually used for nefarious purposes, there's really no legal recourse. The standard argument is that, in such cases, there's no actual harm to be remedied. I can definitely see the reasoning there, though I do worry if that creates bad incentives concerning data protection. However, in a totally different (and much more tragic) situation, you can see how the "no one saw it" line of thinking doesn't make much sense at all. Ryan Calo discusses the story of Tyler Clementi, the Rutgers student who committed suicide a few months back, after his roommate supposedly broadcast his sexual encounters over the internet. The roommate is apparently now saying that no one, other than himself and a friend, ever saw the video, but Calo suggests that this is still a privacy violation:The question of whether the defendants recorded or broadcast the web cam is highly relevant to whether there has been a privacy violation. Yet it is hardly relevant at all to the question of whether there has been a privacy harm.Calo is making an interesting, yet important, distinction here, between a privacy harm and a legal privacy violation. But it also highlights how the "harm" can come from a few different ways as well, including just the feeling of a loss of control, even if the information is not actually used negatively:
What matters is what Clementi believed. If it turns out that Clementi killed himself because he believed the entire campus watched him have gay sex, then he suffered a severe subjective privacy harm. This is true whether or not the belief was accurate. Just as likely is that Clementi had no idea one way or another who saw the footage. The uncertainty could have been nearly as horrible to this desperate, mortified young man as an affirmative belief.
Clementi’s suicide forces us to confront the dual nature of privacy harm. Privacy harm is the objective consequences that flow from the loss of control over personal information. But it is also the subjective experience of that loss of control. This is so not only in the terrible case of Clementi, but in the everyday experiences of the consumer who is worried she will suffer identity theft following a data breach or the citizen who avoids making jokes about terrorism for fear that the NSA is reading his emails.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: privacy, privacy harm, privacy violations
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
not really the issue is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There was a violation of privacy; a persons private intimate action (that reasonable care was taken to keep private in a place intended for privacy) was surreptitiously videotaped by someone not meant to view let alone record it.
There is no subjective element to the violation of privacy here. It was violated.
That the offended party may have over-estimated the harm done by the violation is a different matter from the fact of their privacy being violated.
Any contention that there was no violation of privacy because it was restricted to two people is a category error.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Equity
Yeah. Strange how that logic isn't applied to file sharing cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, making someone believe harm was / is going to be done, *is* harm.
However, I don't get the point of your juxtaposing "data breaches" and a surreptitious video. This young guy *was* harmed, AND the NSA *is* reading your emails. Two harms don't cancel out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Right. And by the same token, isn't it a privacy violation when your data is exposed?
Point is: the courts, so far, say no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Consider a scenario that blends the issues of the Gap case and this one:
Say that instead of a willful violation, somehow, someone in custody of Clementi's laptop by not excercising reasonable and due care lost that laptop, which in turn had Clementi's private video on there. No one ever saw the video, but based on the knowledge of it's potential release, he then commits suicide.
Would we really want the court to make a wrongful death suicide finding due to negligence on that basis? I can't see it.
There's a reason stricter rules are applied to determining negligence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dangerous
What if there was no video at all but he was led to believe there was a video broadcast? Whats the difference if there was a broadcast nobody saw that he believed many saw, of if there was no video and he was convinced there was?
So personally I don't think "What matters is what Clementi believed"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
can we please get more information about countries with sane laws and judges and lawyers and companies? they must be out there somewhere, the whole world can't be _that_ stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]