Privacy in the Information Age.

• Author: BRADFORD, R.W.
• Position: Review

Privacy in the Information Age By Fred H. Cate Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1997. Pp. 248. $39.95 cloth, $16.95 paper.

For advocates of the liberal social order--a society in which the rights to life, liberty, and property are recognized--the issue of privacy is a thorny one. Although we tend to believe, in general, that we ought to be able to maintain our own privacy, we recognize that information about us is, to the extent that it is property at all, a very peculiar kind of property.

And make no mistake: privacy is about information. As Alan Westin wrote in Privacy and Freedom, it is "the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others." For the liberal, the first problematic aspect of the issue is the uncertainty concerning who owns information about individuals, groups, or institutions. Suppose, for example, that Smith sees Jones in the supermarket. Presumably, Smith has a right to that information; the supermarket is, after all, a public place, and he has as much right to be there and to observe as anyone else does. But what right does Smith have to dispose of the information? May he sell it or give it away to anyone he wishes?

Of course, Jones is unlikely to claim a right of privacy about the information that he was in the supermarket at some particular time, so he is unlikely to contest Smith's giving or selling that information to someone else. But such acceptance is not always the case: suppose Smith saw Jones buy a very expensive piece of jewelry. That information could have value to, say, another jeweler, who might annoy Jones with unsolicited advertising, or to a jewel thief, who might do more than annoy Jones.

Suppose Smith observes Jones's conviction for stealing a piece of jewelry. After Jones serves his time in prison, he applies for a job as a jewelry salesman at Johnson's jewelry store. Does Smith have the right to tell Johnson about Jones's previous history as a jewel thief?. Or must he keep that information private, thereby leaving Johnson at substantial risk?

Does Jones have any right to prevent Smith from selling or giving away that information? If Jones has a right to all information about himself, plainly none of that information may be transferred or traded by others. But if the information is Smith's property--as it would seem to be by most liberal theories, because Smith acquired it by his own...