Showing papers on "Information privacy published in 1970"

Privacy and Self-Incrimination

Abstract: The privilege against self-incrimination embodied in the Fifth Amendment is under attack again.' This in itself is not surprising. All of the rights set out in the Bill of Rights are limitations on the will of the majority, and they are bound to be resented if they are effective. But the attack on this privilege is of a rather different character from those made on the other rights and privileges. It is more persistent, emanates from more respectable sources, and calls forth a rather more equivocal and ineffectual defense. Much of the reason for this seems to lie in history. The privilege is, to a great extent, a victim of its own early popularity. It became a rallying point in seventeenth-century England, and, to a degree, in seventeenthand eighteenthcentury America, in large part for reasons which had little to do with its intrinsic merit or lack of it. It was seized upon because it just happened to be a handy means to shield some very popular people against some very unpopular laws. Anything, no matter how badly supported by reasoning, might have served as well.2 Thus, it became established as part of our legal tradition without ever having been subjected to a thorough examination. Levy seems wholly justified in saying that \"by 1776 the principle . .. was simply taken for granted and so deeply accepted that its constitutional expression had the mechanical quality of a ritualistic gesture in favor of a self-evident truth needing no explanation.\"' A privilege with such an origin will remain in a healthy state only if it continues to be regarded as self-evident as it develops over time. But this has not been the case with the privilege against self-incrimination. Many have ceased to see it as a selfevident truth and have begun to question it. An effort has been made to bolster it with a variety of justifications, but none of them seems wholly satisfying.4 Nor have the lines drawn to limit the principle's applicability responded to any self-evident scheme. Many of the limitations and extensions which have developed in recent years remain without any well-thought-out basis in principle. In such a situation, it is not surprising that the attack has been particularly effective. Any defense of the privilege must be founded on a clearly articulated justification for its existence. It must be a justification which will form a solid basis for the core of the privilege as we now know it, while offering criteria for a soundly rationalized redrawing of the

Privacy and Large Scale Personal Data Systems.

Abstract: Large-scale personal data retrieval systems must be expected to come into very general use. Despite the obvious opportunities that these systems offer, they may also involve important hazards for individual and organizational privacy. It is imperative, if privacy interests are to be protected, that stringent protective devices be included in each information system of this type. These devices should involve limitations upon the scope and character of the data that are collected, their dissemination, and their use. They must be tailored to the problems presented by each information system.

Privacy and Security in Data Banks

Abstract: : The problems and implications of privacy in today's computer oriented society are many and diverse. Privacy could possibly become a non-existant commodity and the creation of large data banks containing personal information could result in 'automated blackmail'. Will the end result be a police type dossier on every citizen in the country. Some of the possible solutions both legal and technical are discussed along with some current schemes being employed to insure the privacy and security of information. Additionally, some proposals are discussed which might be used to guarantee file integrity. The application of cryptography to the security problem is also discussed.

Computers—Data Banks and the Individual: Is the Problem Privacy?.

Abstract: The problem of computerized data has been largely conceived of in terms of the concept of privacy. Thus any check of legal periodicals will disclose a number of articles on computers and privacy, and a recent Bill before the English Parliament is entitled “A Bill to Prevent the Invasion of Privacy through the Misuse of Computer Information”.In fact privacy is only one aspect of a wider complex problem, and the concept of privacy both factually and legally is far from coextensive with that problem. Proposals such as the English Bill which speak in terms of privacy are really concerned with problems of accuracy of information, its dissemination and use; and the information may be public or private, it may have been acquired legally or illegally, with or without intrusion of privacy, with or without knowledge, with or without consent.Perhaps the problem could here be categorized as one in which society is attempting to set standards of fair acquisition, fair dissemination, and fair use of information. It is confusing, as will be illustrated below, to set these standards in terms of privacy which is only one of a number of personal and societal values involved.

Privacy in the Workplace

Abstract: The Privacy Act came into force on 1 July 1993. The first part of this paper surveys areas that raise privacy issues in the workplace. These relate in particular to the collection and use of employee information for selection, evaluation, monitoring, surveillance, and testing purposes. The second part of this paper discusses the nature of the Privacy Act, and its effect on the workplace.

The Implications of the Privacy Act on Employment

Abstract: In relation to employment law, the Privacy Act, which came into force on I July 1993, can be usefully characterised as both a human rights statute and a freedom of information statute Before proceeding to discuss the Privacy Act under these two broad headings, it will be necessary to grasp the basic conceptual jargon of the Act The currency of the Pnvacy Act is "personal information," which is defined in s2 as "information about an identifiable individual" The term "information" itself is not defined, which appears to be deliberate, as to define a word is to limit it