A Social Networks Theory of Privacy

L. Strahilevitz
{"title":"A Social Networks Theory of Privacy","authors":"L. Strahilevitz","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.629283","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What facts are public and what facts are private? It is the fundamental, first-principles question in privacy law, and a necessary element in the two most important privacy torts, public disclosure of private facts and intrusion upon seclusion. Yet the American courts lack a coherent, consistent methodology for determining whether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a particular fact that he has shared with one or more persons. Some courts hold that when an individual discloses a sensitive fact about himself to a handful of co-workers, friends, relatives, or strangers, this disclosure renders the fact in question sufficiently public to deprive him of a tort cause of action when that fact is subsequently widely disseminated or obtained by a third party using improper means. Other courts hold that an individual can share such a fact with dozens, or even hundreds of people, and still retain a cause of action under privacy tort law. So how much disclosure is enough to transform a private fact into a public fact? This paper argues that insights from the literature on social networks and information dissemination can help provide courts with satisfying answers to these central questions in privacy law. The social networks literature has generated theoretical and empirical insights about the probability that information disclosed to one member of a community will ultimately become known by a large segment of the community. Using these insights, courts can gauge whether the plaintiff's previously private information would have been widely disseminated regardless of the defendant's actions in a particular case. If so, the information in question was public, and if not, the tort law ought to deem the information as private. This paper argues that such an approach, which treats the privacy question as an empirical one, is more attractive than any other method of establishing whether the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information at issue. The literature on social networks and information dissemination has wide applications beyond privacy tort law, but has found its way into little legal scholarship. Legal scholars interested in Fourth Amendment law, trade secrets, patent law, constitutional privacy, defamation, and other fields might find the paper's survey of social networks theory useful and provocative.","PeriodicalId":161847,"journal":{"name":"University of Chicago Coase-Sandor Institute for Law & Economics Research Paper Series","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"196","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Chicago Coase-Sandor Institute for Law & Economics Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.629283","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 196

Abstract

What facts are public and what facts are private? It is the fundamental, first-principles question in privacy law, and a necessary element in the two most important privacy torts, public disclosure of private facts and intrusion upon seclusion. Yet the American courts lack a coherent, consistent methodology for determining whether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a particular fact that he has shared with one or more persons. Some courts hold that when an individual discloses a sensitive fact about himself to a handful of co-workers, friends, relatives, or strangers, this disclosure renders the fact in question sufficiently public to deprive him of a tort cause of action when that fact is subsequently widely disseminated or obtained by a third party using improper means. Other courts hold that an individual can share such a fact with dozens, or even hundreds of people, and still retain a cause of action under privacy tort law. So how much disclosure is enough to transform a private fact into a public fact? This paper argues that insights from the literature on social networks and information dissemination can help provide courts with satisfying answers to these central questions in privacy law. The social networks literature has generated theoretical and empirical insights about the probability that information disclosed to one member of a community will ultimately become known by a large segment of the community. Using these insights, courts can gauge whether the plaintiff's previously private information would have been widely disseminated regardless of the defendant's actions in a particular case. If so, the information in question was public, and if not, the tort law ought to deem the information as private. This paper argues that such an approach, which treats the privacy question as an empirical one, is more attractive than any other method of establishing whether the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information at issue. The literature on social networks and information dissemination has wide applications beyond privacy tort law, but has found its way into little legal scholarship. Legal scholars interested in Fourth Amendment law, trade secrets, patent law, constitutional privacy, defamation, and other fields might find the paper's survey of social networks theory useful and provocative.
隐私的社会网络理论
哪些事实是公开的,哪些是私人的?它是隐私法中最基本、最基本的问题,也是两种最重要的隐私侵权行为——公开披露隐私事实和侵犯隐私——的必要因素。然而,美国法院缺乏一种连贯一致的方法来确定个人是否对他与一个或多个人共享的特定事实有合理的隐私期望。一些法院认为,当一个人向少数几个同事、朋友、亲戚或陌生人披露有关他自己的敏感事实时,当该事实随后被广泛传播或被第三方以不正当手段获得时,这种披露使该事实足够公开,从而剥夺了他的侵权诉因。其他法院认为,个人可以与数十人,甚至数百人分享这样的事实,并且仍然保留隐私侵权法下的诉讼理由。那么,披露多少信息才足以将私人事实转化为公共事实呢?本文认为,从文献中对社交网络和信息传播的见解可以帮助法院为隐私法中的这些核心问题提供令人满意的答案。社交网络文献已经产生了关于向一个社区成员披露的信息最终被社区的大部分人所知的概率的理论和实证见解。利用这些见解,法院可以判断原告以前的私人信息是否会被广泛传播,无论被告在特定案件中的行为如何。如果是这样,所涉及的信息是公开的,如果不是,侵权法应该将信息视为私人信息。本文认为,这种将隐私问题视为经验问题的方法,比任何其他确定原告是否对争议信息的隐私有合理期望的方法都更有吸引力。关于社交网络和信息传播的文献在隐私侵权法之外有着广泛的应用,但却很少进入法律学术领域。对第四修正案、商业秘密、专利法、宪法隐私、诽谤和其他领域感兴趣的法律学者可能会发现,这篇论文对社会网络理论的调查既有用又具有挑衅性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信