The Unwanted Gaze: The Destruction of Privacy in America

by Jeffrey Rosen

Book Overview

The Unwanted Gaze is an important book about one of the most pressing issues of our day: how changes in technology and the law have combined to demolish our rights of privacy, and what we can and must do to re-secure them. In a world in which Ken Starr can subpoena Monica Lewinsky's bookstore receipts and deleted e-mail messages can be used as justification for firing employees, it's clear that private information of all kinds can be taken out of...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0679765204
• ISBN13: 9780679765202
• Release Date: June 2001
• Publisher: Knopf Publishing Group
• Length: 304 Pages
• Weight: 0.60 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.7" x 5.3" x 7.9"

Customer Reviews

Legal, Technological, and Cultural Look at Improving Privacy

The author finds our privacy under assault by the courts, by new technology, and by changing cultural attitudes. He uses this book to show that we have less privacy now than people did in the United States in the 18th and 19th centuries, and that we will soon have even less unless new approaches are designed. For example, material that would be private if spoken to another person can often be subpoened and written about in the newspaper if included in an electronic note to yourself or in a personal diary. This trend is viewed negatively for exposing what we think are private moments to public scrutiny in embarrassing ways that harm our relationships with others, despite having done nothing wrong. The other harm he cites is the increased stress we feel in having fewer places to let down our hair in private. The legal challenge comes primarily from sexual harassment legislation that permits extensive investigation into the sexual behavior and thoughts of defendants and those they come into contact with. For public officials, this is compounded by the Independent Counsel statute. For everyone, a general restriction in constitutional liberties is involved. As a substitute, the author suggests letting these areas be covered by privacy statutes and precedents for protecting plaintiffs and defendants. The technology challenge is related to electronic records, which can easily be captured (even if they are private). Court cases have permitted unsent messages and erased messages to be exposed in public. He encourages greater use of encryption, limits of court intervention, and letting employees have realms of electronic privacy at work. Culturally, he argues that the nation has taken steps that are too strong to reduce sexual harassment, and that the results are worse than the original problem because witnesses and innocent parties often experience strong harms as a result. He sees this as a reversal in a many centuries trend towards more and more individual privacy and less and less privacy for public figures. For many, this book will be controversial because he offer refers to the Paula Jones case against President Clinton and the subsequent investigations by Special Counsel, Kenneth Starr. Many of the people who lost their privacy in these cases are not exactly popular figures for what they did, which will cloud the arguments. However, he also looks at other famous cases which round out his arguments in more satisfying ways. I was interested in his argument that public censure rather than legal remedies should play more of a role in enforcing desirable public behavior. Anyone who is not a lawyer will find the arguments here probably a bit too much like a law review article, although they are made about as reader friendly as legal arguments can be made. Lawyers who have studied the progress of the right to privacy in its historical context in advertising, birth control, and protection for private co

the right to be let alone is in crisis

We owe Jeffry Rosen an enormous debt for joining issue on a matter of vital importance to the future of America.As we rush headlong into a new but uncertain age, it is becoming increasingly clear that in our zeal to promote the marvels of the Internet, we may be seriously eroding the fundamental rights of the average citizen and consumer. Freedoms that Americans have so long cherished and expected are being undermined everyday not only by both internet entrepreneurs and global corporations, but sadly by our own government.At stake ,as Professor Rosen points out is much more than merely occasional abuses of our more traditional concept of privacy, i.e. the right to protect confidential personal information from disclosure. Rather our more fundamental, constitutional "right to be let alone,"-- the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness without unwarranted scrutiny, physical or electronic invasion, is being assaulted by the proliferation of surreptitious data gathering on the Internet. At stake is much more than merely occasional abuses of our more traditional concept of privacy, i.e. the right to protect confidential personal information from disclosure. Rather our more fundamental, constitutional "right to be let alone,"-- the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness without unwarranted scrutiny, physical or electronic invasion, is being assaulted by the proliferation of surreptitious data gathering on the Internet. While a handful of legislators have expressed concern, the majority of Congress, administration officials and industry spokesmen have suggested only technical solutions. And it is true there are some ingenious software programs coming downstream. Companies like Zero Knowledge Systems in Montreal have software which allows you to disguise yourself on the web. Some software will block all the cookies from being placed on your hard drive or erase the ones you have -- but you will of course be locked out from going back to the site again. Other companies like Disappearing Ink use encryption technology to make it extremely difficult for anyone to retrieve your email after it has been deleted. Most people, by the way, still think when they hit the delete key, it's gone. Not so in the world of cyberspace as even Bill Gates discovered when confronted with some of his e-mail during the course of the Microsoft antitrust proceeding.But technology alone is not the solution. Jeffrey Rosen believes "the battle for privacy must be fought on many fronts -- legal, political and technological -- and each new assault must be vigilantly resisted as it occurs." He is optimistic that Americans, who have a history of rising to the occasion when they are outraged, will demand governmental action. But others are less sanguine. Privacy, they argue, is dead. Too many Americans have already compromised their personal rights for a free six-pack of Coke or a membership in a frequent-buyer program. Most a

the right to be let alone

Jeff rosen has helped us join issue on a matter of vtal public concern to all Americans.It is becoming increasingly clear that in our zeal to promote the marvels of the Internet, we may be seriously eroding the fundamental rights of the average citizen and consumer.At stake is much more than merely occasional abuses of our more traditional concept of privacy, i.e. the right to protect confidential personal information from disclosure. Rather our more fundamental, constitutional "right to be let alone,"-- the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness without unwarranted scrutiny, physical or electronic invasion, is being assaulted by the proliferation of surreptitious data gathering on the Internet. While a handful of legislators have expressed concern, the majority of Congress, administration officials and industry spokesmen suggest only technical solutions. Companies like Zero Knowledge Systems in Montreal have software, which allows you to disguise yourself on the web. Some software will block all the cookies from being placed on your hard drive or erase the ones you have -- but you will of course be locked out from going back to the site again. Other companies like Disappearing Ink use encryption technology to make it extremely difficult for anyone to retrieve your email after it has been deleted. Most people, by the way, still think when they hit the delete key, it's gone. Not so in the world of cyberspace as even Bill Gates discovered when confronted with some of his e-mail during the course of the Microsoft antitrust proceeding.But technology alone is not the solution. Jeffrey Rosen believes "the battle for privacy must be fought on many fronts -- legal, political and technological -- and each new assault must be vigilantly resisted as it occurs." He is optimistic that Americans, who have a history of rising to the occasion when they are outraged, will demand governmental action. Others are less sanguine. Privacy, they argue, is dead. Too many Americans have already compromised their personal rights for a free six-pack of Coke or a membership in a frequent-buyer program. Most are not even aware they are so vulnerable. Thus it is very unclear what support there is for national privacy legislation. While the Clinton Administration made it clear to the FTC that their call for a privacy bill of rights was premature, and Vice President Gore once called for an electronic bill of rights, neither he nor Bush have taken strong positions during this campaign to make privacy an issue of national public importance.At the least, the President-this one or the next-- must create A National Privacy Protection Study Commission as both Nixon and Ford did to get to the heart of the commercially driven privacy issues and make their recommendations to the President and the Congress. Only at the national level in a publicly appointed body will we get at the truth of our concerns and forge solutions under the wa

THIS BOOK CHANGED MY LIFE

brilliantly argued, beautifully written, this book changed my life and the way i see the world. i never realized the relentless, often unobservable invasions of privacy all around me. rosen documents these incursions and offers meaningful, realistic solutions. above all, this is a book filled with humanity, humor, and insight. i feel the better for reading it. Thank you professor rosen.

Dimensions of Privacy

I have a problem with the subtitle ("The Destruction of Privacy") because my definition of privacy seems to be more inclusive than is Rosen's. He is quite correct when expressing concern about what we both view as abuses of the Fourth Amendment, especially in recent years because of the WWW. I also agree with him that, in a litigious society, the sexual-harassment law has motivated many people to assert that all forms of offensive behavior are ipso facto illegal. But has privacy been destroyed or, at least, is it in imminent danger of being destroyed? I don't think so. I define privacy to include thoughts and feelings to which we can control access by another person. There are certain areas within the human mind and heart which can never be penetrated by an electronic device. However unwelcome an "unwanted gaze" may be, however offensive or even illegal another person's behavior may be, one's private or personal "space" need not be penetrated...unless with permission. Rosen raises a number of important issues. He supports his assertions (especially those concerning the sexual-harassment law) with solid examples. I share his concern about abuses of information which have been made possible by various electronic devices. I share his contempt for any behavior which violates human dignity. As previously indicated, my definition of privacy is apparently more inclusive than is his. We also seem to differ on the purpose of privacy. For Rosen, privacy is defined by "social boundaries that protect us from being simplified and objectified and judged out of context." For me, privacy exists within four different dimensions (physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual) and its purpose is to help define one's identity and nourish one's dignity. Laws should protect us from threats which are illegal...and social rejection should protect us from threats which are offensive. What are your own thoughts about all this? Read Rosen's book. You may have your own disagreements with him on certain points but I think you will share my appreciation of the information and opinions he shares.