Rating: 
Summary: THIS BOOK CHANGED MY LIFE
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: If you value Freedom, read this book
Review: Ever wonder why Monica Lewinski's private life could be held up to public scorn when she was never charged with a crime nor was even the target of a law suit? Ever wonder what has happened to the 4rth amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures? Are you baffled by the social straight jacket that "Sexual Harassment" law has imposed on both men and women in the work place? Then read Professor Rosen's book. Well researched, clearly written for the layman, in a little over 200 pages, Jeffrey Rosen explains how privacy rights have been eroded and why personal privacy is so critical for the functioning of a free society.
Rating: 
Summary: what mr. rosen doesn't cover
Review: Found Rosen's appearance on CSpan to discuss this book a bit of a put off in regard to reading it. He's hot to trot on Lewinski's computer but made no mention of The Defense Dept.'s release of Tripp's FBI files to Jane Mayer of the New Yorker magazine by Mr. Bacon who holds a big position under Sec. Cohen or the congressman from Washington State who released surrepitiously obtained recordings by party hacks to the Wash. Post. If you can't trust the pentagon or the congress to abide by rules of privacy why complain if Macy's tells Gimbels. I doubt that Rosen mentions these severe infractions of privacy laws in his book. If such are omitted what do we have revealed that exceeds the violations above mentioned.
Rating: 
Summary: Dry and distant...
Review: I bought this book expecting something more than opinion on database policy, and was never able to force myself to finish it. I found no evidence that the author has ever realized that coercive, devastating assaults on our privacy can be conducted by our neighbors, friends, and co-workers using radio technology and other covert surveillance devices. Despite the over-riding fear of big brother--both government and corporate--the people who know us, even if we do not know them, constitute the greatest unrecognized threat to our privacy. They are the ones who can really "hit us where we live". Most serious crimes are committed by those closest to us. Unfortunately, both public policy and privacy advocates seem to lack awareness of the destructiveness and availability of cheap electronic surveillance components, and the almost impossible task of escaping from this type of "unwanted gaze". We need authors like Jeffrey Rosen to consider the impact of having their voices and images recorded and broadcast without our knowledge. They should then go shopping. Manuals, devices, and tips for the destruction of personal privacy are mass produced and widely available for ridiculously low fees. Manuals, devices, and policy to protect individuals against violations by other individuals are completely ineffectual. If a victim is not a public figure, authorities, including lawyers, will not even hear the complaints. There is currently no defense, private or governmental, against this particular brand of urban terrorism... It's a given that government and major corporations will violate our privacy in the course of their everday endeavors. The average citizen will probably never be able to catch them, much less stop them, and will probably suffer little harm. The same is not true when your neighbor buys an illegal scanner and tapes your phone calls or hides a wireless camera in your bedroom and publishes it on the internet. One important policy concern: Law enforcement, corporations, and government-in-general have a large stake in persuading the populace this technology is restricted to "authorized users" and that common access and abuse of electronic technology is still science fiction...If we keep believing this technology isn't being misused by our neighbors, we won't cry out for laws that make it more difficult for the powers that be to continue abusing their access to our lives.
Rating: 
Summary: Good Topic, Mediocre Effort
Review: I bought this looking for some insight into the increasingly popular privacy movement. I got what I was looking for, but it wasn't a GREAT book, just a good book.
Rating:
Summary: Good Topic, Mediocre Effort
Review: I bought this looking for some insight into the increasingly popular privacy movement. I got what I was looking for, but it wasn't a GREAT book, just a good book.
Rating:
Summary: Dimensions of Privacy
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: The Shame Of Our Adversarial Legal System
Review: I share Jeffrey Rosen's anger over the victimization of Lawrence Lessig. The Harvard University Law scholar's humorous and casual remarks about the software giant were unethically taken out of context. This resulted in forcing Lessig to resign his post as the Microsoft "special master." It is, however, an earlier incident ignored by Rosen that requires our current attention. During the murder trial of O.J. Simpson, Detective Mark Furhman was viciously attacked for using the "n" word. The Liberal media had a field day deriding this man for simply employing the word regardless of how it might have been used in a conversation. Rosen warns us to be wary of taking statements out of context. Yet, few legal scholars, if any, realized the precedent being set during the lynching of Detective Furhman. The Afro-American comedian, Chris Rock, never hesitates to joke about "niggers" and he is paid well for doing so. I have heard the "n" word used warmly between black males often in my life. Furhman, however, was not allowed the opportunity to explain the context of his words. Johnny Cochrane was permitted in a court of law to demand of Furhman if the latter had simply ever uttered the "n" word. Judge Ito disgracefully allowed Cochrane to get away with this outrage. The law departments of our major universities shamed themselves by their silence. Words are intrinsically nebulous. Language is a discipline belonging primarily to the Liberal Arts, and not the hard sciences. There is inherently no such thing as the unchanging and absolute meaning of any word. Literal language does not exist on our planet. The absolute letter of the law is a senseless concept. Ultimately, the spirit of the law is all we have separating us from Armageddon. It is merely a matter of the probability or outside possibility of how certain words are to be interpreted. This why I also argue that we will never engage, Bill Joy notwithstanding, in a give and take conversation with a computer. Stanley Kubrick's "HAL," will forevermore remain a fictional character. The meaning of a particular word is always subjective. This is neither the time and place for me to go into greater detail, but the philosophical deconstructionists mistakenly conclude that we should therefore abandon ourselves to nihilistic relativism and unbridled skepticism. Nevertheless, words are of no value unless put into proper context. It is both the logical and moral duty of individuals to make sure that they do their best to prudentially understand the whole context of another's words. Professor Rosen should invest time and energy reevaluating our almost sacred doctrinal adherence to our adversarial legal system. His concerns regarding privacy issues make little sense unless the very premise of our system of justice is taken to task. The disgusting and vile doctrine encourages the ruthless disregard of truth and justice. Our adversarial legal system inevitably deteriorates into something akin to a game with debatable rules in which only victory at any cost is to be valued. Laws based on an adversarial set of guidelines eventually seduce the wider culture. This encourages the mindset that anything and everything goes as long as one cannot be arrested or sued for their misbehavior. Originally in our nation's history, the destruction of the adversarial principle was limited because of a tacit agreement not to abuse the system. In the 21st Century, though, attorneys normally lie and offer the excuse that their words might through a bizarre interpretation mean the opposite of their common usage. President Bill Clinton, for instance, is a splendid example of this decline when he lied about having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Vigorous advocacy of our rights is appropriate and mandatory if our democratic society is to survive. I strongly reject the concept that an individual should be presumed guilty until proven innocent. It is foolish, however, to pretend that we must either embrace the evil principle of adversarial justice, or American Democracy is unsustainable. The less extreme principle of vigorous advocacy is pragmatic and workable. I suggest that Jeffrey Rosen tackle this subject in his future writings. It behooves Rosen to go a bit deeper into the subject of privacy. His present book is well done, but it essentially puts the proverbial cart before the horse.
Rating:
Summary: the right to be let alone
Review: 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 watchful eye of the body politic and the press. Secondly we should insist that at minimum, the Federal Trade Commission's recommendations outlined in their report to Congress be embraced and the commission be directed to set the standards in the four areas they called for: notification about the use of personal data; consumers choices about the use of such information; the right of individuals to review data about themselves; and security measures to prevent unauthorized disclosure. It would be ironic and sad if the same constitution which created a free press and a free enterprise system enabling the robust knowledge economy we now admire, was somehow responsible for the massive loss of personal privacy we are witnessing and with it a demise of more fundamental freedoms of our democratic society. Eger, Lionel Van Deerlin Professor of Communications and Public Policy at San Diego State University, was telecommunications advisor to Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.
Rating:
Summary: THE DESTRUCTION OF PRIVACY IN AMERICA VIA THE INTERNET!
Review: Jeffrey Rosen, author of THE UNWANTED GAZE (2000), went to Harvard College, Oxford U. (Balliol College....the book jacket doesn't say if he were a Rhodes Scholar like President Clinton was, but probably he was), and finally (again like President Clinton), Yale Law School. Also, like Mr. Clinton, Mr. Rosen taught (still teaches) law school at Washington, D.C.'s excellent and underrated Geroge Washington University. Need we say more? If EVER an overachiever walked the face of the planet, Mr. Rosen certainly fits the that description. Beyond question, he is one smart dude! His excellent book, THE UNWANTED GAZE (about privacy invasion by computers...and evil people invading YOUR PRIVACY using computers), is worth buying from Amazon.Com and reading again and again. This is easier said than done. Simply possessing the book and finding a quiet place to read it doesn't deliver the information Rosen offers (worth having once gotten) easily. His book is about an immensely complicated subject, and even though Rosen is a genious (really!) law professor, etc., etc., tackling his book ain't easy. The result is that, through no fault of his own (he's breaking very thick and important ice), his book is extremely difficult to read and digest. Read it anyway. You'll learn a lot about an important subject. Here's what his book is about: As thinking, writing, and gossip increasingly take place in cyberspace, the part of our life that can be monitored and searched has vastly expanded. E-Mail, for instance (the most used and most famous form of cyberspace use), even after it is deleted, becomes a PERMANENT record that can be resurrected by employers or prosecutors (district attorneys, cops, the FBI, the CIA....you know....those guys, and for the past 30 years, those girls) at ANY point in the future. Cyberspace doesn't give a damn about paper deterioration, etc. Cyberspace is a WHOLE NEW media ball game with brand new rules! On the Internet, EVERY website we visit, every store we browse in, every magazine we skim...AND the AMOUNT OF TIME we skim it...create electronic FOOTPRINTS that can be traced back to us, revealing detailed patterns about our tastes, preferences, and intimate thoughts (example...I visit public libraries very often and use library computers and Internet services....cops checking up on me who trace writings like the one you are now reading...composed in a Maryland public library...and see a pattern of public library use). The brilliant Mr. Rosen (a smart lawyer you ought to hire if you get in trouble) explores the legal, technological, and cultural changes that have undermined our ability to control how much personal information about ourselves is communicated to others. He proposes ways of reconstructing some of the zones of privacy that law and technology have been allowed to invade (computers, the Internet, etc. ALONE don't do evil things and victimize people without help....it takes bad guys and gals USING computers, the Internet, etc. to do us dirty and invade out privacy). Poor gorgeous, big busted Monica Lewinsky, the Linda Lovelace of the Whitehouse, is the main example Mr. Rosen uses to illustrate his worthwhile point. If Mr. Rosen is a comic book example of an overachiever (see above stated educational credentials if you doubt he is an overachiever), Ms. Lewinsky is the comic book provider of oral sex to highly place politicians, certainly eclipsing Linda Lovelace and others you may have heard about. She got famous for this, and thus is easy to relate to. For this reason, perhaps, Mr. Rosen, uses her. He does so brilliantly to show how legal types and nosy types got away with invading her privacy using computers and the Internet. Ms. Lewinsky was not regarded sympathetically by the media, and perhaps for this reason, the VIOLATION of HER RIGHTS to privacy was ignored as a journalistic topic. She was, in the male chauvinist mentality of the times, simply regarded as an appendage of the OTHER villain in the Clinton/Lewinsky story, Mr. Clinton, destined to become the most famous sex act President in U.S. history (it will be hard for future sex abuse Presidents to top his act). Mr. Rosen plays the gentleman, and defends Ms. Lewinsky, especially her violated rights to privacy. These rights were invaded when her computer use (to buy books, to write her diary, to send E-Mail communications, etc.) was used AGAINST her (in order to make Mr. Clinton look bad) in flagrant VIOLATION of her rights to free speech and privacy. Mr. Rosen makes the dubious legal analysis that women seeking redress from sexual harrassment abuses, such as those suffered by Paula Jones and Anita Hill, should trash sexual harrassment charges and instead charge invasion of privacy. This is one of the very few few weak parts of Rosen's book or thinking, but it is such spectacular balderdash that it is worth mentioning. The author of THE UNWANTED GAZE (title taken from the "Encyclopedia Talmudit," not to be confused with the Talmud) discusses Kenneth Starr's tapes and DoubleClick's (DoubleClick is the world's largest Internet advertising company at present....buy its stock if you want to get rich quick) on-line profiles (they probably have mine gotten from Amazon.Com and also from HotMail, both of whom successfully solicited "profiles" ,i.e. autobiographies, from me). This smart Yale lawyer prepared by Oxford and Harvard REALLY covers the waterfront. The result is that readers like me get very scared of the Internet, and start returning to use of OTHER information sources nutty FBI loose cogs (like G. Gordon Liddy and J. Edgar Hoover) can't trace so easily. For instance, NOW, when I want to communicate with one of my celebrity friends, I use the public library's copy of WHO'S WHO IN AMERICA.....their PRINT copy, NOT their on-line copy. THAT WAY bad guys don't know who I'm sending nasty notes to, or nice notes, as the case may be. Staying away from the Internet might be a healthy thing. Personally, I don't plan to, but you might consider the idea. You'll probably last longer than I will.
|
