Privacy Generic - DDI 2015 SWS

7/25/2019 Privacy Generic - DDI 2015 SWS

1/130


2/130


3/130


4/130


5/130


6/130


7/130


8/130


9/130


10/130


11/130


12/130


13/130


14/130


15/130


16/130


17/130


18/130


19/130


20/130


21/130


22/130


23/130


24/130


25/130


26/130


27/130


28/130


29/130


30/130


31/130


32/130


33/130


34/130


35/130


36/130


37/130


38/130


39/130


40/130


41/130


42/130


43/130


44/130


45/130


46/130


47/130


48/130


49/130


50/130


51/130


52/130


53/130


54/130


55/130


56/130


57/130


58/130


59/130


60/130


61/130


62/130


63/130


64/130


65/130


66/130


67/130


68/130


69/130


70/130


71/130


72/130


73/130


74/130


75/130


76/130


77/130


78/130


79/130


80/130


81/130


82/130


83/130


84/130


85/130


86/130


87/130


88/130


89/130


90/130


91/130


92/130


93/130


94/130


95/130


96/130


97/130


98/130


99/130


100/130


101/130


102/130


103/130


104/130


105/130


106/130


107/130


108/130


109/130


110/130


111/130


112/130


113/130


114/130


115/130


116/130


117/130

)argetted Surveillance =orsentargeted surveillance stigmati es su$3ects, is ineRcient and could $eeasily replaced $y targeted, evidenced>$ased surveillance-ad3imatheou 1 , aterina /ad>i atheouH Research #ello) on an %D+0unded !ro>ect on theethics o0 surveillance in serious and organi9ed cri e entitled SDRE%I %H Acce!ted 2 May -&12HPublished= $ August -&12H ?8he Relative Moral Ris3s o0 Dntargeted and 8argeted Surveillance@HS!ringer Sciencep usiness Media ,ordrecht -&12H %thic 8heory Moral Prac ;-&14< 17=1$7 -&7,*I 1&.1&&7"s1&677+&12+ 4-$+1Hhtt!s=""))).evernote.co "shard"s24$"share"57$cb+s24$"res"7 6c4$d +1e&e+44-d+ &be+ -$0127c--67"artO1&.1&&7Os1&677+&12+ 4-$+1.!d0 < S

1. Dntargeted surveillance is un0air because it treats innocent !eo!le li3e sus!ects )ithout any!rior evidence o0 sus!iciousness. Sus!icion should be triggered by evidence o0 )rongdoingH rather than !recede it. ysus!ecting those 0or )ho no evidence o0 )rongdoing e ists Huntargeted surveillancestig atises the un0airlyKunder ines the !resu !tion o0 innocence ;/aggerty and %ricson 1 7= 4-KMonahan -&1&=


118/130

0ailed to aintain the oral standards o0 the co unity can be hu iliating. Peo!le are hu iliated )henthey cannot !revent a!!earing to others in )ays that are de eaning ; ou+/abib -&11=44ust i !lica+ tion o0 )rongdoing . 8hisay create 3noc3+on social costsH by eroding their trust in the surveilling authorities H )hich in turnay reduce their )illingness to coo!erate )ith those authorities and to su!!ort the en0orce ent o0 other rules ;#unda ental RightsAgency o0 the %D #RA -&1&= -1udice it can be e !eri+ enced as !articularly hu iliating bothby those surveilled and by those )ho are not the selves surveilled but )ho share the traits thattrigger the sus!icion and 0or that reason 0eel i !licated ;Par ar -&11=


119/130

A2 Surveillance BiscriminatesMass surveillance doesnDt stigmati e E simply en!orces normal rulesdepending on situation-ad3imatheou 1 , aterina /ad>i atheouH Research #ello) on an %D+0unded !ro>ect on theethics o0 surveillance in serious and organi9ed cri e entitled SDRE%I %H Acce!ted 2 May -&12HPublished= $ August -&12H ?8he Relative Moral Ris3s o0 Dntargeted and 8argeted Surveillance@HS!ringer Sciencep usiness Media ,ordrecht -&12H %thic 8heory Moral Prac ;-&14< 17=1$7 -&7,*I 1&.1&&7"s1&677+&12+ 4-$+1Hhtt!s=""))).evernote.co "shard"s24$"share"57$cb+s24$"res"7 6c4$d +1e&e+44-d+ &be+ -$0127c--67"artO1&.1&&7Os1&677+&12+ 4-$+1.!d0 < S

It ight be ob>ected that the act o0 choosing a range 0or any easure o0 untargeted surveillanceitsel0 involves sus!icion and that there0ore untargeted surveillance continues to be stig atising .

8his is true in so e casesH as is discussed belo). ut it see s )rong 0or any routine e a !les o0 untargetedsurveillance . 8here are reasons )hy !eo!le travelling by aero!lane are sub>ect to searches noti !osed on those travelling by car and reasons )hy car drivers but not !ilots are sub>ect tosurveillance by s!eed ca era. In order to acce!t the clai that surveilling all car drivers bys!eed ca era stig atises the as sus!ected s!eeders or that surveilling all airline !assengers stig atises theas !otential terroristsH )e )ould have to acce!t that these reasons are al)ays or o0ten related to the

sus!iciousness o0 either the activity surveilled or the individuals engaged in it . 8his see s highlyunli3ely. ,riving cars is a dangerous activity and thus should be regulated by en0orceable rulessuch as s!eed li its . 8he only !eo!le )ho can brea3 the !articular rule o0 road sa0ety e bodiedin a s!eed li it are car drivers . Surveilling anyone else but the )ould be !erverse. 8here0ore itsee s )rong to argue that the indiscri inate surveillance o0 all !eo!le engaged in a !articularactivity singles the out and thereby stig atises the H )hen the surveillance is used in order toen0orce the rules o0 that !articular activity.

ul surveillance doesnDt mean pro#ling E not rooted in pro$lematicassumptions%-ad3imatheou 1 , aterina /ad>i atheouH Research #ello) on an %D+0unded !ro>ect on theethics o0 surveillance in serious and organi9ed cri e entitled SDRE%I %H Acce!ted 2 May -&12HPublished= $ August -&12H ?8he Relative Moral Ris3s o0 Dntargeted and 8argeted Surveillance@HS!ringer Sciencep usiness Media ,ordrecht -&12H %thic 8heory Moral Prac ;-&14< 17=1$7 -&7,*I 1&.1&&7"s1&677+&12+ 4-$+1Hhtt!s=""))).evernote.co "shard"s24$"share"57$cb+s24$"res"7 6c4$d +1e&e+44-d+ &be+ -$0127c--67"artO1&.1&&7Os1&677+&12+ 4-$+1.!d0 < S

Dntargeted surveillance should be distinguished 0ro !ro ling H )ith )hich it o0ten has uch in co onH but)hich does treat !eo!le li3e sus!ects and thereby stig atise the . Pro ling can be de ned asthe syste atic association o0 sets o0 !hysicalH behaviouralH !sychological or ethnic characteristics )ith rule+brea3ing and their use as a basis 0or a3ing security decisions ;/ad>i atheou -&11=5


120/130


121/130

A2N Bemocracy'chilling efectSurveillance does not eliminate dissent, empirical e6amplesdemonstrate the opposite%Sagar H 201. RahulH associate !ro0essor o0 !olitical science at ale+:DS College and the ee uan e) Schoolo0 Public Policy at the :ational Dniversity o0 Singa!ore. /e )as !reviously assistant !ro0essor inthe ,e!art ent o0 Politics at Princeton Dniversity.H NAgainst Moral Absolutis = Surveillance and,isclosure A0ter Sno)denHN %thics International Afairs " Eolu e - " Issue &- " -&15H !! 145+15 .

(reen)ald identi es t)o a>or har s. 8he rst is !olitical in nature. Mass surveillance is said tostiUe dissent because ?a citi9enry that is a)are o0 al)ays being )atched Buic3ly beco es a co !liant and 0ear0ul one.@Co !liance occurs becauseH antici!ating being sha ed or conde ned 0or noncon0or ist behaviorH individuals )ho 3no) they arebeing )atched ?thin3 only in line )ith )hat is e !ected and de anded.@12 %ven targeted 0or s o0 surveillance are not to be trustedH(reen)ald arguesH because the ?indiference or su!!ort o0 those )ho thin3 the selves e e !t invariably allo)s 0or the isuse o0!o)er to s!read 0ar beyond its original a!!lication.@14 8hese clai s stri3e e as overblo)n . 8he ore e tre eclai H that surveillance 0urthers thought controlH is neither logical nor su!!orted by the 0acts. It islogically Ua)ed because accusing so eone o0 trying to control your ind !roves that they have not succeeded in doing so. *n aore !ractical level H the 0ate et by states that have tried to !er0ect ass controlJthe Soviet Dnion and the (er an ,e ocratic Re!ublicH 0or e a !leJ suggests that surveillance cannot eli inate dissent. It is alsonot clear that surveillance can under ine dissident ove ents as easily as (reen)ald !osits. 8he Dnited States recordH he )ritesH?is sufused )ith e a !les o0 grou!s and individuals being !laced under govern ent surveillance by virtue o0 their dissenting vie)sand activis JMartin uther ingH r.H the civil rights ove entH anti)ar activistsH environ entalists.@15 8hese cases are certainlytroublingH but it hardly needs !ointing out that surveillance did not !revent the end o0 segregationH retreat 0ro Eietna H and the riseo0 environ ental consciousness. 8his record suggests that dissident ove ents that have !ublic o!inionon their side are not easily inti idated by state surveillance ;a !oint rein0orced by the Arab S!ringect tooversight .


122/130

A2N Authoritarianism)he claims a$out authoritarianism are hyper$olic and paranoid% All la"en!orcement practice might $e used improperly, $ut accounta$ilitychec s the "orst practices%Simon, 2014,Fillia /. Si onH Arthur evitt Pro0essor o0 a) at Colu bia DniversityH 1&+-&+-&14H NRethin3ingPrivacyHN oston Revie)H htt!=""bostonrevie).net"boo3s+ideas")illia +si on+rethin3ing+!rivacy+surveillance

8he third tro!e o0 the !aranoid style is the sli!!ery slo!e argu ent. 8he idea is that an innocuous ste! in a 0eared direction )illine orably lead to 0urther ste!s that end in catastro!he. As 8he Music Man ;1 6-< !uts it in e !laining )hy a !ool table )ill lead tooral colla!se in River CityH Io)aH ? edicinal )ine 0ro a teas!oonH then beer 0ro a bottle.@ In this s!iritH ,aniel Solove in :othingto /ide ;-&11< e !lains )hy broad surveillance is a threat even )hen li ited to detection o0 unla)0ulactivity. #irstH surveillance )ill so eti es lead to ista3en conclusions that )ill har innocent !eo!le. SecondH since ?everyoneviolates the la) so eti es@ ;thin3 o0 oderate s!eeding on the high)ay


123/130

not al)ays have to be !re ised on anony ity. :ot everyone )ants to hide all the ti eH )hich is)hy !ublic engage entJthrough social edia or blogsH 0or instanceJis such a central as!ect o0the conte !orary Internet.


124/130

A2N )yranny)he argument that ;SA surveillance ena$les tyranny is "rong% )he datae6ists inevita$ly and i! you are concerned a$out the ris o! a tyrantta ing over, there are much $igger issues than privacy to $e concerneda$out%/t ioni H Pro0essor o0 International Relations at the (eorge Fashington DniversityH 2014

A itai %t9ioni H Intelligence and :ational Security ;-&14


125/130

A2N State A$uses are morally o$3ectiona$le;o /thical a$use E ethical $ene#ts to surveillance out"eigh A;Binherent sa!eguards chec )aylor 0.VIn Praise o0 ig rother= Fhy Fe Should earn to Sto! Forrying and ove (overn ent Surveillance a es Stacey 8aylor Public AfairsXuarterly Eol. 1 H :o. 2 ; ul.H -&&5stor.org"stable"4&441412 W ""duf

It ust be ad itted thatH in !racticeH a syste o0 constant State surveillance is li3ely to be abused to so e e tent.-& /o)everH i0 one ado!ts arights+based understanding o0 clai ;ii< above ;i.e.H i0 one holds that such a syste o0 State surveillance is !er issible as long as it doesnot in itsel0 violate !ersons oral rightsection can be readily rebutted. *n such an understanding o0 clai;ii< one could rst note that this abuse+based ob>ection gets its 0orce 0ro the vie) that such abuse )ould violate!ersons oral rights . 8he !ro!onent o0 a rights+based understanding o0 clai ;ii< )ould certainly agree )ith this underlying vie)H and )ould

>oin )ith its advocates in conde ning such abuse. /o)everH the rights theorist )ho )as in 0avor o0 such a syste o0State surveillance )ould also note that the conde nation o0 the abuse o0 State surveillance isnot to conde n State surveillance itsel0. 8o conde n the use o0 0or the !ur!oses o0 vH )here yviolates !ersons rights ;e.g.H to !rivacy or autono y< is not also to conde n the use o0 0or the !ur!oses o0 9H )here 9 does not violate !ersons rights . 8husH a rights theorist )ho )as a !ro!onent o0 State surveillance could argueH toofer the !ossibility o0 abuse as an ob>ection to constant State surveillance is to con0use theoral status o0 diferent !ossible uses o0 such surveillance . #or such !ro!onents o0 State surveillanceH thenH this rst

ob>ection can be readily dis issed. I0 one ado!ts a conseBuentialist understanding o0 clai ;iiection is ore di cult. 8his is because the li3elihood o0 such abuse together )ith the li3elihood o0 such abusecausing har ust be )eighed against the bene ts ;as outlined above< that such a syste is li3ely to !rovide. AndH given that such a syste has notyet been i !le entedH such a )eighing and balancing o0 its relative costs and bene ts )ill be di cult to assess )ith certainty. ,es!ite thisH ho)everHthere is good reason to believe that little har )ill accrue 0ro the abuse o0 such a syste o0surveillance . 8husH given the li3elihood that such a syste o0 State surveillance )ill bring i !ortant bene tsto the citi9ens o0 the State in )hich it is installedH the !ossibility o0 its abuse should not deterconseBuentialists 0ro endorsing the above !ro+surveillance argu ent. 8o sho) )hy there is good reason tobelieve that little har )ould accrue 0ro such a syste o0 State surveillance its conseBuentialist !ro!onents should rst distinguish bet)een a>orabuses o0 such a syste and inor abuses o0 it. A a>or abuse o0 such a syste )ould be one in )hich the Stateused its !o)er together )ith its i !roved surveillance ca!abilities to !ersecute or o!!ress its

citi9en sH either individually or as a )hole. A inor abuse o0 the syste )ould be one in )hich so e o0 theagents o0 the State secured access to the in0or ation gathered by its surveillance devices 0ortheir o)n ne0arious !ur!oses H such as voyeuris or the oc3ery o0 the !ersons )hose recorded actions they are vie)ing. 8heconseBuentialist !ro!onent o0 constant and universal State surveillance need not be undulyconcerned about the !ossibility o0 a>or abuses o0 the State surveillance syste . I0 the State )ere !roneto abuse its citi9ens in this )ay !rior to the installation o0 such a syste H this )ould !rovide good conseBuentialist grounds 0or resisting its introduction.

8he conseBuentialist !ro!onent o0 constant State surveillance is thus only concerned )ith de0ending the introduction o0 such a surveillance syste inthose cases )here the State )as not !rone to abusing its citi9ens in this )ay. 8his is not to sayH ho)everH that a State ;or the agents o0 a State< that )asnot !rone to !ersecuting or o!!ressing its citi9ens ight not occasionally !ersecute individual citi9ens. In res!onse to this the conseBuentialist!ro!onent o0 constant State surveillance should note that given its !o)er )ere the State ;or its agents< to decide to !ersecuteso e o0 its citi9ens in this )ay it )ould not need a syste o0 surveillance to do this efectively .

8husH although such a surveillance syste ight a3e it easier 0or the State ;or its agents< to engage in the !ersecution that it had decided u!onH this)ould not a3e things any )orse 0or the !erson or !ersons thus !ersecuted . As suchH thenHthe!ossibility o0 the a>or abuse o0 a syste o0 constant and universal State surveillance by a Statethat )as not !rone to !ersecuting its citi9ens )ould not H 0or a conseBentialistHbe a signi cant ob>ectionto the introduction o0 such a syste . FhatH thenH o0 the concern that such a syste o0 constant State surveillance )ould be sub>ectto inor abuses 8he ost obvious res!onse to this concern is to argue that i0 such a syste o0 surveillance isintroduced then it ust be acco !anied by a series o0 sa0eguards that )ould reduce the!ossibility that the in0or ation that it gathers )ould be abused in this )ay . It ightH 0or e a !leH be that sucha syste should be acco !anied by the reBuire ent that o nly a very 0e) !ersons have access to the in0or ation thatit gathersH that such !ersons be screened care0ully and su!ervised closelyH and that they aresub>ect to draconian !enalties 0or any abuses that they ight !er!etrate. I0 they )ere severe enough such sa0eguards )ouldbe li3ely to reduce the !ossibility o0 the inor abuse o0 such a syste o0 surveillance to a level )hereby the har that its abusers ightcause )ould be out)eighed by the advantages that it )ould !rovide to the State s citi9ens as a
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40441413http://www.jstor.org/stable/40441413http://www.jstor.org/stable/40441413


126/130

)hole . /o)everH the conseBuentialist !ro!onent o0 State surveillance also has a second + and ore !hiloso!hically interesting + res!onse to theconcern that such surveillance )ould be sub>ect to inor abuse= that such abuse )ould not be har 0ulH and so )ould notdetract 0ro the advantages outlined above. 8his res!onse is based on observing that given the !enalties 0or abuseby )hich such a syste )ould be acco !anied ;as outlined above< any such abuse )ould be!er!etrated covertly . As suchHits victi s ;e.g.H !ersons sub>ected to the voyeuristic ga9e o0 so e o0 the agents o0 the State< )ouldnot 3no) that they )ere victi s . et even though this is soH the !ro!onents o0 this second res!onse to the above abuse+basedob>ection do not use this observation to argue thatH since such !ersons did not 3no) that they )ere being )atchedH this )atching did not har the .-1

8his is becauseH as oel #einberg has !ersuasively arguedH the ere 0act that a !erson is ignorant o0 the 0rustration o0 her interests ;e.g.H her interest notto be the un)illing sub>ect o0 voyeuris < does not ean that she has not thereby been har ed.-- RatherH this second conseBuentialist res!onse to the

above abuse+based ob>ection con>oins this observation )ith the clai that 0or a !erson to be har ed her li0e ust havebeen adversely afected in so e )ayH )hether she 3ne) o0 this or not. 8o su!!ort this latter clai it )ill beuse0ul to e a ine ore closely #einberg s argu ent against the vie) that a !erson can be har ed only i0 she 3no)s that she has been har ed. 8hise a ination )ill serve t )o !ur!oses. #irstH it )ill sho) )hy the conseBuentialist !ro!onent o0 constant State surveillance should not clai that theun)itting victi o0 ;e.g.< State voyeuris 0ailed to be har ed by it o)ing to her ignorance o0 it. SecondH it )ill su!!ort the clai that a !erson s li0e ustbe adversely afected 0or her to be considered har ed + the clai on )hich this second res!onse rests.


127/130

/ )N ;o A$use o! Surveillance

)he ;SA is "ell>regulated and constrained $y 3udicial oversight%Cohen, 201.Michael A. CohenH 15H 0ello) at 8he Century #oundation. PreviouslyH Michael served in the D.S.,e!art ent o0 State as chie0 s!eech)riter 0or D.S. Re!resentative to the Dnited :ations illRichardson and Dndersecretary o0 State Stuart %i9enstat. H 6+2+-&15H N:SA Surveillance ,ebate,ro)ned *ut on oth Sides by #ear 8acticsHN Forld Politics Revie)Hhtt!=""))).)orld!oliticsrevie).co "articles"15 &5"nsa+surveillance+debate+dro)ned+out+on+both+sides+by+0ear+tacticsa

8he argu ents o0 :SA o!!onents haveH 0or t)o yearsH relied on hy!otheticalH tru !ed+u! 0ears o0 thegovern ent ransac3ing our !rivate in0or ation . 8hese concerns have been raised even thoughH 0ro alla!!earancesH the :SALs do estic surveillance activities are reasonably )ell+regulated andconstrained by >udicial oversight . :SA o!!onents li3e to !oint out that a recent court decision deter ined that the bul3records collection !rogra )as illegalH )hich ignores the any other court decisions that acce!ted its legality. More i !ortantH itignores the decisions o0 the secret #ISA CourtH )hich ordered the :SA not to scra! collection!rogra s that )ere deter ined to be o!erating unconstitutionallyH but rather to a3e changes

to the to get the in line )ith constitutional constraints.

)hereDs no evidence o! a$use o! surveillance po"ers%Simon, 201 , ,avid Si onH !roducer o0 / *Ls 8he FireH 7"2"12H NFe are shoc3edH shoc3ed...HNhtt!=""davidsi on.co ")e+are+shoc3ed+shoc3ed"

I 3no) itLs big and scary that the govern ent )ants a data base o0 all !hone calls. And itLs scary that theyLre !aying attention to the internet. And itLsscary that your cell !hones have (PS installed. And itLs scaryH tooH that the little bo that lets you go through the short toll lane on I+ 5 lets so eoneH

so e)here 3no) that you are on the ove. Privacy is in decline around the )orldH largely because technologyand big data have atured to the !oint )here it is easy to create a net that onitors any dailyinteractions . So eti es the data is valuable 0or co erce J )itness those 0aceboo3 ads 0or Italian shoes that y )i0eust endure J and so eti es 0or la) en0orce ent and national security . ut be honestH ost o0 us are grudging!artici!ants in this dyna ic. Fe )ant the cell !hones. Fe li3e the internet. Fe donLt )ant to sit in the slo) lane at the /arbor 8unnel toll !la9a. 8heBuestion is not should the resulting data e ist. It does. And it 0orever )illH to a greater andgreater e tent. And there0oreH the !resent+day Buestion canLt seriously be this= Should la)en0orce ent in the legiti ate !ursuit o0 cri inal activity !retend that such data does not e ist .

8he Buestion is ore 0unda ental= Is govern ent accessing the data 0or the legiti ate !ublic sa0ety needs o0 the societyH or are they accessing it in)ays that abuse individual liberties and violate !ersonal !rivacy J and in a anner that is unsu!ervised. And to thatH the (uardian and those )ho are)ailing >ere iads about this !retend+discovery o0 D.S. big data collection are noticeably silent. Fe donLt 3no) o0 any actual abuse.:o 3no)n illegal )ireta!sH no indications o0 #ISA+court a!!roved interce!ts o0 innocent

A ericans that occurred because )ea3 !robable cause )as acce!table. Mar3 youH that stuf ay be ha!!ening.As ha!!ens the case )ith all la) en0orce ent ca!abilityH it )ill certainly ha!!en at so e !ointH i0 it hasnLt already. Any data asset that can be !ro!erlyand legally invo3edH can also be isused J !articularly )ithout care0ul oversight. ut that o0 course has al)ays been the case )ith electronicsurveillance o0 any 3ind.


128/130

8ther


129/130

A2 Semantic BiscontinuitySemantic discontinuity is 3ust as li ely to $ene#t the interests o! po"er%al in, 2012

ac3 M. night Pro0essor o0 Constitutional a) and the #irst A end entH ale a) School. NRoo0or aneuver= ulie CohenLs theory o0 0reedo in the in0or ation state.N erusale Revie) o0egal Studies 6.1 ;-&1-udges the !resence or absence o0 se antic discontinuity 0ro the !ers!ective o0 a !articular individualH andnot 0ro the !ers!ective o0 govern entsH businessesH or other !o)er0ul institutions. 8his asy etry is necessary to ensure thatdiscontinuity hel!s individuals rather than hurts the . Some gaps in legal and technological en!orcementmight $ene#t the po"er!ul !ar more than the po"erless% (overn ents ight ta3eadvantage o0 ga!s in civil liberties !rotectionsK large businesses ight ta3e advantage o0 ga!s inconsu er !rotection regulations . #aceboo3Ls ever+shi0ting !rivacy !olicies see to be a !ro inent e a !le o0 a businessta3ing 0ull advantage o0 se antic discontinuities )herever it nds the . ut Cohen see3s se antic discontinuity 0orthe bene t o0 the ordinary individual and not 0or the eviathan stateH the national securitya!!aratusH the ultinational cor!orationH or the ale0actor o0 great )ealth. Although this asy etry istheoretically necessary to CohenLs argu entH it is not clear )hether she can 0ully >usti0y or o!erationali9e it. (a!s and a biguities incode and la) that bene t individuals ight also bene t !o)er0ul cor!orationsH and vice versa. IndeedH so eti es it ay not be!ossible to se!arate the t)o in !ractice. 8hin3 o0 (oogleLs current !osition on 0air use as an e a !le. ou8ubeLs business odel is!re ised on inco !lete and inefective en0orce ent o0 co!yright in0ringe ent. #or that atterH so is (oogleLs entire enter!rise o0scra!ing content 0ro virtually every site on the FebH storing itH inde ing itH and serving u! !arts o0 it on de andH all )ithout!er ission o0 the co!yright o)ner. /ere CohenLs notion o0 se antic discontinuity see s related to onathan [ittrainLs argu ent 0or!rotecting e erging businesses that 0oster the generativity o0 the Internet.16 Many o0 the businesses andinter ediaries on )hich the !lay o0 everyday !ractice de!ends are the selves the bene ciarieso0 ga!s and a biguities in the la). It ay be di cult i0 not i !ossible to create in0or ationsyste s and !olicies that ofer ga!s and a biguities that individuals can e !loit )ithout alsohanding the sa e tools to large !rivate enter!rises J)hoH a0ter allH have greater access to technical and legaltalent to e !loit the . IndeedH the !roble )ith a biguities in a legal syste is that the rich ay be ableto e !loit the better than the !oorK and the !roble )ith ga!s is that the !o)er0ul ay be able

to !ush through the ore easily than the )ea3. 8he !hiloso!her Anacharsis once re ar3ed to the great la)giverSolon that la)s are li3e s!iderLs )ebs that snare the )ea3 and !oor but that the rich and ighty can easily brea3 through.17Se antic discontinuity is ulti ately about tradeofsH and CohenLs boo3 only begins the discussion about ho)those tradeofs ight be acco !lished. %ven the eta!hor o0 tradeofs ay be isleadingH as it suggests acare0ul balance o0 bene ts and ris3s. ut the )hole !oint o0 ga!s and discontinuities innet)or3ed syste s is that they ofer o!!ortunities 0or the une !ectedH and 0or un0oreseentrans0or ations o0 !o)erJ including ever ne" opportunities !or e6ercising po"er overothers .

Semantic discontinuty doesnDt "or in the conte6t o! national security%al in, 2012

ac3 M. night Pro0essor o0 Constitutional a) and the #irst A end entH ale a) School. NRoo0or aneuver= ulie CohenLs theory o0 0reedo in the in0or ation state.N erusale Revie) o0egal Studies 6.1 ;-&1-


130/130

Documents

Privacy Generic - DDI 2015 SWS