Whither Information Governance - Essay Example

Section/# Whither Information Governance? Introduction: Privacy and the way in which information is utilizedhas come to be an increasingly important aspect of the modern world. As society relies upon information technology in never expansive ways, the manner through which the information itself is safeguarded, who has access to it, for how long, and how they might use it all present prescient and concerning questions for users of information technology around the globe. As a means of seeking to address these issues, remedial steps have been taken throughout consumer markets, the private sector, and government (Ministry of Justice, 2014). Accordingly, in order to more deeply understand these dynamics and the means through which information governance is shifting and continually redefined, the following analysis will focus on defining information privacy, specifying why it is of importance, how privacy can be protected, discussing freedom of information, and how freedom of information can be guaranteed in a world that is increasingly paranoid about access to information and the need to safeguard it. It is the hope of this author that such a level of discussion will be beneficial in providing the analyst a more thorough and nuanced understanding of information governance and the means through which it has evolved and may likely evolve in the near future. Defining Information Privacy: For purposes of this brief analysis, this author will consider the identification of “privacy” as defined by James Moor in his article, “Towards A Theory of Privacy in the Information Age”. Furthermore, after the analysis of Moor’s particular theory with relation to privacy and how it impacts upon the way that law has grown, expanded, and changed to fit the understood needs of our current era, this author will also seek to provide a bit of commentary on whether one can come to an understanding and rational for such a definition is in keeping with reality or whether it stands to be more concretely or less explicitly defined. As a function of this level of analysis, the analysis can present the prime viewpoints of scholars is that it is necessary to understand privacy within he context of the law more completely prior to delving into the mechanisms through which it can be safeguarded (Sutanto, 2013). Through coming to an understanding of the way that privacy law has grown and developed, the reader/researcher can come to appreciate the rules and regulations that serve to protect what many have come to consider a “fundamental right” (Weston, 1970). One of the main points that the scholars point to with respect to information privacy is with regard to attempting to define “the nature of privacy” (Yang et al., 2014). This is a fundamentally important question to ask due to the fact that the term is thrown around with such seeming carelessness within our current world. However, the term privacy itself, as the researchers note, is not something that is guaranteed by any of the founding laws that have helped to define the way in which courts and the legal system seeks to interpret law. As the analysis indicates, this poses a fundamental problem due to the fact that privacy law has been a unique construct that has basically needed to be defined along the way as needs and issues have come up with relation to it. This issue has been further confused but the fact that technological revolutions have occurred within the past few decades which have served to complicate the means by which the courts and the law engages with the issue of personal privacy and privacy in general (Selbst, 2013). Seeking to understand the way in which this takes place within the constraints of the law and within the cultural understanding of the importance and if possible to even state, “right” to privacy, is a topic of profound importance to any well developed study of privacy and privacy issues (Mundie, 2014). Finally, on can understand that seeking to define privacy based upon what information is, and should be, considered private, that which can and should be considered public, and that which falls into the more unexplained area that necessarily causes the debate which prompted the discussion itself to become hopeless confused. Similarly, with respect to the response that such a topic caused within the mind of this particular reader, it was one that struck at the very core of privacy law and seeking to engage and answer questions with relation to why privacy law has not been defined to a more appropriate extent than it currently is. Although the author does not go into a great deal of depth upon the topic, there a few take away that I have had with relation to such a question (NIssenbaum, 2010). The first of these is centers upon the fact that the founders of the republic did not see a world in which such a level of privacy concerns would be an issue within the lives of its citizens. Although it is impossible to guess what the true understanding and underlying motives of the early founding fathers might have been, it is reasonable to say based upon the decision making that they exhibited that they placed a high value on the non-interference of government and the private sector into the lives of the citizen. Secondly, more than merely discussing the way that individual firms might act with regards to their potential clients and current customers, a more likely approach that would have existed had the same level of occurrence been ongoing at the time that the laws were being written, would have been for more systemic reforms with relation to the means whereby business and marketing takes place (Solove, 2013). Although this is of course guesswork, it is nonetheless noteworthy as a result that the current world hardly resembles the one whose overarching rules and regulations seeks to govern the way that the court system enforces law. Why Information Privacy is Important: It is without question that one of the most powerful means by which our society has been transformed is the Internet. The Internet has allowed individuals rapid access to a wealth of information as well as means of distraction and entertainment that television could only dream of. As a result, the individual within society has begun to represent many changes as compared to previous generations; changes of exceeding importance that impact upon the way in which business and leisure life is conducted. Some of these changes are positive whereas others are negative (Kesan et al., 2013). A cursory review of the current global system reveals the fundamental divergence that many people exhibit with respect to the issue of privacy. Some individuals feel perfectly at ease with an intrusive level of government spying on their personal lives, whereas others invoke the right to privacy as a fundamental and inalienable right that must not be infringed upon (Ambrose, 2013). Although it is true that I consider myself an advocate of privacy, this particular analysis will seek to argue a position for how and why certain viewpoints on privacy could and should be changed as a function of creating a safer and more secure world. Rather than delving into point by point agreement or rebuttal of the role of privacy within the life of the individual, this author will attempt to integrate the analysis based upon some of the ways in which changes, both for the better and for the worse, could be effected (De Oliveira Martins, 2013). As a means of such an analysis, it is the hope of this author that the reader will be able to integrate with one of the most important issues that exist within the realm of technology during the current era: the right to privacy. Although it has always been a policy of firms seeking to maximize their profits to endeavor to gain valuable information with regard to their client base, the extent to which websites such as Facebook and Google have gone to extract this information from their users is unprecedented. One of the trade-offs to the readily available information and use of social networking that both of these sites, as well is a host of others, display is the fact that they provide lengthy, nuanced and ultimately confusing privacy policies that are written in what can only be described as many pages of legalese (Sutton, 2013). Naturally, such privacy policies are intended not towards protecting the privacy of the individual Web server; rather, they are designed to protect against any liabilities that the firm may incur based upon their otherwise unscrupulous gathering of information of their users. It is the belief of this particular researcher that such practices are highly unethical and represent breaches of consumer confidence that in any other industry would be taken as an affront to consumer privacy and respect. Unfortunately, the level to which government is willing to safeguard the users of these monolithic and highly lucrative firms is extraordinarily limited (Mayer-Schonberger & Cukier, 2013). Although it is beyond the scope of this analysis to offer an in-depth discussion of why this might be, it is the belief of this particular researcher that the line between industry and government is particularly blurred both with respect to Facebook and Google (Bambauer, 2013). This blurring has not helped the consumer/web surfer whatsoever; rather, it has only helped these firms to further market their products and seek to gain valuable information with regard to the habits and preferences of the millions of individuals that use their services on a daily basis. In the past, cooperation between the government and private firms rarely turned out to the overall benefits of the end consumer. Although such a situation is possible, the level and extent to which government is currently reliant and highly cooperative with the likes of Google, Facebook and others does not bode well for the right to privacy from the end user/consumer. Naturally, the key concern is not centered necessarily upon the fact that Google and others are seeking to track and retain this information; rather, the key issue becomes as follows: What do they intend to do with such information? How will they use it? For how long will they keep it and who ultimately has access to it? (Corbett, 2013). The overall importance of privacy and the need for tools to safeguard privacy have recently been challenged by such individuals as Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. By denoting and correctly identified this particular aspect of the dangers that the web poses – both on an individual level and upon a corporate/governmental level – to the end user, these stakeholders have cast a new light on the way in which information privacy should be utilized within society (Brook, 2007). However, it is also the belief of this author that both Assange and Snowden have something of a jaded opinion towards the Internet and perhaps technology in general. Although the concerns that have been elaborated upon in this essay are of vital importance, they are not a reason themselves to shun technology or the Internet. Instead, they are merely an example of the fact that the individual must integrate a level of care, as with any other activity, when using the Internet. Accordingly, the take away that this author would wish the reader to integrate with is that web surfing can and should be something that the individual expects a degree of privacy from. As such, key activities, actions and preventions should be established so that the prying eyes and unscrupulous means by which these companies seek to extract data from the user are stymied at each and every turn. Only by seeking to resist this, rather than merely turning the technology often refusing to use it, can the users of such services display a degree of leverage. How the Individual Can Protect Privacy: A prescient concern that many privacy rights groups and employees alike have begun to voice is the fact that any and all electronic communication that is carried out via a company computer or company Smartphone is libel to interception and/or analysis by the company who owns the device (JISC, 2014). As part of nearly every employee confidentiality disclosure form that is required to be signed prior to employment commencing, the employee gives away the rights to personal privacy while using any and all electronic forms of communication that are provided by the employer (whether on or off work hours). Such policies mean that it is becoming increasingly more difficult to define where personal privacy and eavesdropping laws end and the rights of the employer being with respect to monitoring any and all forms of electronic communication that the employee might engage in while employed. Accordingly, the purpose of this essay is to provide a thoughtful commentary on key issues relating to privacy and employer rights with respect to the issues at hand (Shah & Asghar, 2014). Furthermore, the analysis will seek to raise some key questions with reference to what the technological development evidenced within the past few years portends for the employment frontier. By engaging in such a form of inquiry, the reader will essentially be made aware of some of the current pitfalls and issues regarding privacy that exist within the current job market and the means through which they can ultimately be avoided. Ultimately, the employee has a certain degree of privacy that they should expect. Firstly, if they are to be surveilled at the workplace, either in terms of video surveillance areas or audio surveillance, they must be made aware of this in advance. Although different states have different laws with regard to who can record what and when, a general and safe rule of thumb is to be completely forthcoming with respect to what types of information might be collected, in what situations/circumstances, in what areas, and where (Mayer-Schonberger & Cukier, 2009) By being forthcoming, the employee has an expectation of privacy that can be upheld by the company should there every be a situation in which wrongful eavesdropping or surveillance of their personal information might be alleged. Further, it should be understood that the technological development that has taken place within the past few decades has made a profound and lasting impact on the way that firms surveil and monitor their employees. Prior to this technological revolution, the ways in which an employer could surveil an employee legally were quite limited (Litt, 2013). Privacy laws dictated that electronic eavesdropping by means of a microphone or the use of a hidden camera was illegal. (Brown, 2000) As such, the level to which an employer could ethically, morally, and legally gain a degree of inference with regards to what activities and thoughts the employee shares within the company, among personal friends, or any other such activities is brought clearly into focus. The true crux of the matter is not the fact that the employer will be able to gain a high degree of inference with regards to the potential unethical or illegal activities in which the employee might be engaging; rather, it has been proven statistically that a high percentage of emails and correspondence that are done at work are of a personal nature. Naturally, such correspondence put a burden on the sender to understand and realize that the privacy of these communications is suspect due to the terms of the confidentiality agreement and terms of electronic communications that they have agreed to; however, there is a small degree of moral burden on the part of the employer as well to actively seek to purposefully disregard such personal conversations as long as they do not represent a breach of contract or any form or manifestation of illegality (Brook, 2007). Yet, the issue with such an approach hinges upon the fact that the employer will not be painstakingly reading each and every correspondence generated by the employee. Unfortunately, privacy laws or ethical considerations cannot guarantee that this will not be the case. Defining Freedom of Information: As human rights have developed, the past several years have noted a change with respect to the definition of core rights and the way in which freedom of speech has been re-defined. Accordingly, within the past few decades, a primary emphasis has been placed upon the need to consider freedom of information as a corollary to freedom of speech; allowing individuals the freedom of speech – not only in terms of the content of that “speech”, but in terms of the medium through which it is delivered (Vaidhyanathan, 2012). Accordingly, it is broadly understood that the right to privacy and freedom of information act hand-in-glove with one another; allowing for a further extension of basic human rights. In terms of governance and privacy, freedom of information law has allowed millions of documents to be available, at least in some way, to the inquiring public; allowing for individuals to have a more unimpeded view of the way in which government operates and the means through which decisions are affected. Yet, beyond mere government adherence, freedom of information oftentimes applies to the way in which private industry and the citizen engage one another. Laws that further help to delineate what information should be held, how it can be used, and for how long all fall under the legal framework that has come to be defined as “freedom of information law” (Solove, 2008). Accordingly, beyond merely providing government with a further level of culpability to the societal stakeholder, freedom of information laws around the globe encourage private industry to be more ethical; as the public can oftentimes require these stakeholders to submit evidence of their business dealings or approaches to key situations. An often overlooked component for why investors have gravitated towards a demand for further levels of freedom of information with respect to private industry has to do with the means by which insider trading scandals and purposefully faulty accounting standards were utilized over the past decade by so many firms. Seeing that these practices had a drastically negative impact upon the insight and investing potential that an individual might be able to effect, pressure came to be exhibited within the market to drastically re-define the overall level and extent of information that the consumer/investor could have access to (Innes, 1992). In much the same way that freedom of information is restricted within government, specifically in cases relating to national security or classified material, the same can be said with regard to the way in which freedom of information within the corporate world is restricted to those aspects that are not defined by trade secrets or competitive advantage that might provide a firm’s competition with an unfair advantage over them. As a direct result of this restriction, freedom of information is not without its restrictions (Toy, 2013). From the information that has thus far been presented, it is clear and apparent that the evolving nature of the modern world has created a situation in which the need to redefine the freedom of information has effected a fundamental shift with respect to the way in which individuals, governments, and private industry interact with one another. Yet, a refreshing reality is that even within the rapidly changing dynamics of the modern world, the ability of the legal and social systems to redefine themselves and promote a further level of transparency still exists (Thierer, 2013). This should not by any means encourage the analyst to assume that the overall level of information freedom that exists within the current era will continue in an ever expanding role in the near future; instead, it should serve as a vital representation of the fact that the freedom of information, if championed and promoted, can effect a more equitable society that appreciates the legal rights of both the individual and groups. A Discussion of Why Freedom of Information Is Important: Ultimately, there are a range of reasons why freedom of information is important. The first of these is contingent upon the need to develop and redefine democracy in an era of continued and rapid technological change. As such, freedom of information serves a vital role of helping to ensure that the same precepts and basic understandings of personal freedom and the ability to gain access and retain information are upheld (Dewri & Thurimella, 2014). By safeguarding the liberties that have already been defined and seeking to broaden them within the age of increasing technological interdependence, freedom of information holds a primal place of importance within the rights and privileges that modern society has come to take for granted. Another core aspect for why freedom of information is important is with regard to the further growth and development of human progress (Sunstein, 2006). In much the same way as the early democracies of the world understood and appreciate the need for basic societal freedoms, and the tangential benefits that this had for quality of life and the overall benefits with relation to economics, the potential for further growth and development of society is only possible within a system that seeks to be proactive in protecting the rights of individuals and increasing transparency wherever possible and profitable. A further element that must be discussed with relation to the need for freedom of information has to do with the fundamental role that freedom of information and the transmission of data has with regard to human progress. As has been noted previously, the changes that have been noted over the past several decades have been start; and have ushered society into completely new directions of development (Landmore, 2013). As such, the need for freedom of information is integral for society to continue to develop on a healthy path. Just as it was necessary for the financial controls of the government to oversee an increasingly complex and differentiated financial sector, the need for an increasing level of focus to be placed upon freedom of information is just as relevant within an era that is defined by rapid and pervasive technology (Proia, 2013). However, from all the information that has been discussed, it should not be understood that the current exhibition of freedom of information or the laws surrounding it are sufficient. In much the same way as the financial sector continues to exhibit weaknesses, despite the litany of laws that help to define and constrain it, freedom of information and privacy are no different (Surowiecki, 2005). Ultimately, the degree and extent to which the legal system and the society at large can seek to safeguard this fundamental human right is contingent upon the emphasis that they place upon accomplishing such a task (National Archives, 2014). Already, developed and democratic societies, the United Kingdom included, have made significant strides with respect to guaranteeing a degree of privacy and information freedom; however, these steps are merely a preliminary response to a very wide issue that will doubtless engender a much more nuanced and concrete response as time goes on (O’Hara & Shadbolt, 2008). How Freedom of Information Can be Guaranteed: Thus far, the analysis has focused upon the ways in which privacy and freedom of information contribute to the development of a free and open society. However, even as freedom of information is more broadly accepted as a fundamental human right, it must tangentially be understood that the process of defining and securing freedom of information is not guaranteed. Instead, this brief section will set about defining the ways in which freedom of information can be safeguarded and developed; so that future generations can continue to expect and enjoy the very same benefits that the current generation is attempting to effect. Firstly, the legislative power of the system must not be ignored as a means of effecting and guaranteeing a greater level of privacy and freedom of information. This is an especially important aspect of the means by which freedom of information can be guaranteed into the future (Solove, 2004). Further, by the very means by which laws are drafted and agreed upon, this approach demands the full involvement of the democratic process; thereby partially ensuring that the end result will be capable of maximizing the best interests of the maximum level of stakeholders. Additionally, by encouraging a level of legal protection for freedom of information, even in addition to what currently exists, society will be able to set forward a standard and precedent through which further issues can be measured. This precedent, although having a direct corollary to legislation, is perhaps most important with regard to the way in which culture and society come to integrate with these “new” concept. The greater the level of acceptance and the greater the engagement that is practiced, the greater and better the end result will be and the greater that freedom of information can be guaranteed into the future. Finally, in the same way that tolerance towards minorities and the need for high ethical standards have been promoted within both the educational and public spheres over the past several decades, the need for an appreciation for and the desire to expand and differentiate freedom of information would also help to guarantee that this concept remains relevant for the immediate future. Ultimately, beyond sponsoring freedom of information to the same degree that other rights are sponsored, society, and by extension the government, would ultimately benefit from such a level of engagement. Without a focus on informational freedom and the relevance that it has to nearly every aspect of life, it is at least possible that stakeholders within society would otherwise simply disregard its relevance. However, by impacting upon education and the culture at large, public policy can ensure that this issue remains front and center for the way in which society develops in the coming years (Surowiecki, 2005). Conclusion: Within the current global system, there are of course a litany of different issues and concerns. Topics such as population growth, global warming, demographic shifts and a litany of others vie for the attention of the stakeholders. Yet, outside of existential threats to human life, it must be understood that existential threats to human society and culture are also present and prevalent throughout the current world. As such, it is very much the belief of this analyst that the threats to information and privacy in a world that is increasingly reliant upon technology and defines/redefines itself so rapidly, is an issue of pre-immanent concern that cannot be ignored. As a result of this, the need to safeguard, protect, and promote informational freedom and privacy stands as a fundamental need that is not likely to decrease in the coming years. References Ambrose, M. (2013). ITS ABOUT TIME: PRIVACY, INFORMATION LIFE CYCLES, AND THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN. Stanford Technology Law Review, 369-421. Bambauer, D. E. (2013). Privacy versus Security. Journal Of Criminal Law & Criminology, 103(3), 667-683. Brooke, H. (2011). The Revolution Will Be Digitized: Despatches from the Information War. London: Heinemann. Brooke, H. (2007). Your Right to Know: A Citizen’s Guide to the Freedom of Information Act. Second Edition. London: Pluto Press. Brown, R. (2000). Group Processes: Dynamics With and Between Groups, Second edition. Oxford: Blackwell. Corbett, S. (2013). The retention of personal information online: A call for international regulation of privacy law. Computer Law & Security Review, 29(3), 246-254. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2013.03.005 De Oliveira Martins, M. (2013). Risk Assessment vs. Right to Privacy: The Access to Health Information on the Insurance Candidate through Questionnaires and the Right to Privacy. European Journal Of Health Law, 20(1), 63-78. doi:10.1163/15718093-12341254 Dewri, R., & Thurimella, R. (2014). Exploiting Service Similarity for Privacy in Location-Based Search Queries. IEEE Transactions On Parallel & Distributed Systems, 25(2), 374-383. doi:10.1109/TPDS.2013.34 Inness, J.C. (1992) Privacy, Intimacy, and Isolation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [ElectronicResource, University of Sheffield Library]. HM Government/National Archives. (2014). “Legislation.gov.uk” Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ [Source for Freedom of Information and Data Protection legislation] Information Commissioner’s Office (2014). The Information Commissioners Office. http://www.ico.gov.uk/ JISC Legal (2014). Information Governance. Available at: http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/MyRole/InformationGovernance.aspx Kesan, J. P., Hayes, C. M., & Bashir, M. N. (2013). Information Privacy and Data Control in Cloud Computing: Consumers, Privacy Preferences, and Market Efficiency. Washington & Lee Law Review, 70(1), 341-472. Landemore, H. (2013). Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and and the Rule of the Many. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press. [Electronic resource, University of Sheffield Library]. Litt, R. S. (2013). Privacy, Technology and Security. Vital Speeches Of The Day, 79(10), 313-321. Mayer-Schonberger, V. and Cukier, K. (2013). Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work and Think. New YorK: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Mayer-Schonberger, V. (2009). Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press. [Electronic resource, University of Sheffield Library]. Ministry of Justice (2014). “Tribunals: General Regulatory Chamber, Information Rights”. Available at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/tribunals/general-regulatory-chamber Mundie, C. (2014). Privacy Pragmatism. Foreign Affairs, 93(2), 28-38. Nissenbaum, H. (2010). Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford (Ca): Stanford Law Books. O’Hara, K. and Shadbolt, N. (2008). The Spy in the Coffee Machine. Oxford: Oneworld. Poynter, K. (2008). Review of Information Security at HM Revenue and Customs. Available at: ctpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/poynter_review250608.pdf PROIA, A. A. (2013). A New Approach to Digital Reader Privacy: State Regulations and Their Protection of Digital Book Data. Indiana Law Journal, 88(4), 1593-1618. Selbst, A. D. (2013). CONTEXTUAL EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY. Cardozo Law Review, 35(2), 643-709. Shah, R., & Asghar, S. (2014). Privacy preserving in association rules. Turkish Journal Of Computer Sciences, 22(2), 434-450. doi:10.3906/elk-1206-66 Solove, D.J. (2004). The Digital Person: Technology and Privacy in the Information Age. London: New York Press. Solove, D.J. (2008). The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet. London: New York University Press. Solove, D. J. (2013). INTRODUCTION: PRIVACY SELF-MANAGEMENT AND THE CONSENT DILEMMA. Harvard Law Review, 126(7), 1880-1903. Sunstein, C.R. (2006) Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Electronic resource, University of Sheffield Library]. Surowiecki, J. (2005). The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many are Smarter Than the Few. London: Abacus. Sutanto, J., Palme, E., Chuan-Hoo, T., & Chee Wei, P. (2013). ADDRESSING THE PERSONALIZATION-PRIVACY PARADOX: AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT FROM A FIELD EXPERIMENT ON SMARTPHONE USERS. MIS Quarterly, 37(4), 1141-A5. Sutton, J. (2013). OF INFORMATION, TRUST, AND ICE CREAM: A RECIPE FOR A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON THE PRIVACY OF HEALTH INFORMATION. Arizona Law Review, 55(4), 1171-1200. Thierer, A. (2013). The Pursuit of Privacy in a World Where Information Control Is Failing. Harvard Journal Of Law & Public Policy, 36(2), 409-455. Toy, A. (2013). Old and New Paradigms for Information Privacy.New Zealand Universities Law Review, 25(5), 938-959. Vaidhyanathan, S. (2012). The Googlization of Everything (And Why We Should Worry). London: University of California Press [Electronic Resource, University of Sheffield Library] Westin, A.F. (1970). Privacy and Freedom. London: Bodley Head. Yang, X., Tinghuai, M., Meili, T., & Wei, T. (2014). A Survey of Privacy Preserving Data Publishing using Generalization and Suppression. Applied Mathematics & Information Sciences, 8(3), 1103-1116. doi:10.12785/amis/080321 Read More