Privacy,stigma and public protection: A socio-legal analysis of criminality information practices in the UK

Criminality information practices involve public authorities in the UK (and elsewhere) gathering, retaining and sharing information that connects with an identifiable individual; all with the ostensible aim of upholding and improving standards of public protection. This piece first charts the landscape of contemporary criminality information practices in the UK today. The article then examines recent legal emphases and policy directions for public protection networks. Consideration is then given in the piece to privacy rights and values and the difficulties in providing an exact typology and grounding for these. The piece then outlines a suggested framework for correct legal regulation, as well as a through commentary on the work done by Catherine Bellamy et al. to empirically determine the extent to which public protection information sharing can in fact occur in correct adherence to legal regulation. A socio-legal analysis is undertaken of the nature of public protection networks as variants on Goffman's performance teams within a dramaturgical routine that foregrounds stigmatisation of perceived ‘risky’ individuals as an aspect of that routine. This piece also explores the processes of institutional isomorphism as a reaction to shifting policy directions and legal doctrines, acting as a driving force towards a hierarchical performance of criminality information practices by public protection networks. Three conclusions are offered up for consideration: firstly, that the growing complexity of the law and regulation relating to criminality information practices might improve privacy values in the criminal justice system and help to add precision to necessary processes of stigmatisation in relation to the aim of public protection. Secondly, that these shifts in the law still need ongoing revisions, in order that a hierarchical approach to criminality information practices can be arrived at over time. Thirdly, that if the permanency of potential stigmatisation through the indefinite retention of criminality information cannot change, due to the competing pressure on the criminal justice system from public protection duties, then consultation with ‘risky’ individuals where practicable, before criminality information connected to them is shared across public protection networks becomes essential as a privacy-enhancing value and practice.     

Privacy and intra-familiy communication of genetic information.

The new knowledge (and predictions) created by DNA tests and the family nature of genetic information has already lead to a new problem: the intra-familiar communication of genetic data. This raises questions such as the following. Is there a duty to inform in cases when treatment is possible and the patient does not permit disclosure of genetic results to relatives? Is there an obligation to warn or merely an authorization (that could be used or not)? Could privacy protection be maintain as an individual interest but with some justified violations? A balance needs to be establishes between the interest of privacy and the need to disclose secret information.     

Prevention and health standards: American, Soviet, and European models

This paper explores some significant sources of variation in the way health standards are derived and used in various countries: differences in biological and regulatory philosophies, in enforcement strategies, and in institutional arrangements. Such cross-national variations raise a number of questions about the process of standard-setting. Among the issues discussed here are the nature of the trade-off between long-run goals and feasibility criteria that merely codify current technical and economic practice, and the possibility of replacing statutory regulation by self-regulation and non-statutory codes and standards.     

Altered states: state health privacy laws and the impact of the Federal Health Privacy Rule

Although the Federal Health Privacy Rule has evened out some of the inconsistencies between states' health privacy laws, gaps in protection still remain. Furthermore, the Federal Rule contains some lax standards for the disclosure of health information. State laws can play a vital role in filling these gaps and strengthening the protections afforded health information. By enacting legislation that has higher privacy-protective standards than the Federal Health Privacy Rule, states can play three important roles. First, because they can directly regulate entities that are beyond HHS's mandate, states can afford their citizens a broader degree of privacy protection than the Federal Health Privacy Rule. Second, by having state health privacy laws, states can enforce privacy protections at the local level. Finally, action by the states can positively influence health privacy policies at the federal level by raising the standard as to what constitutes sufficient privacy protection. High privacy protections imposed by states may serve as the standard for comprehensive federal legislation, if and when Congress reconsiders the issue. So far, states' reactions to the Federal Privacy Rule have been mixed. Only time will tell whether states will assume the mantle of leadership on health privacy or relinquish their role as the primary protectors of health information.     

Privacy and disclosure of official records and information. Final rules

These final rules revise our privacy and disclosure rules to clarify certain provisions and to provide expanded regulatory support for new and existing responsibilities and functions. These changes in the regulations will increase Agency efficiency and ensure consistency in the implementation of the Social Security Administration's (SSA) policies and responsibilities under the Privacy Act and the Social Security Act.     

New Governance,Chief Privacy Officers,and the Corporate Management of Information Privacy in the United States: An Initial Inquiry

While the turn from traditional regulation to more collaborative, experimentalist, and flexible forms of governance has garnered significant academic focus, far less attention has been paid to the effects of such “new governance” approaches on regulated firms' understanding of the laws' demands, and on the structures employed within business organizations to meet them. This article targets this analytic gap by examining internal corporate practices regarding consumer privacy, an arena in which the Federal Trade Commission and the states have adopted new governance models. Using data from qualitative interviews with leading corporate Chief Privacy Officers, as well as internal corporate documentation, it examines the way privacy practices have been catalyzed in the shadow of new privacy governance approaches and the combination of regulatory, market, and stakeholder forces they seek to harness. Specifically, it suggests the convergence of a set of practices adopted by privacy officers identified as “leaders,” regarding both high‐level corporate privacy management and the integration of privacy into entity‐wide risk management goals through technology, decision‐making processes, and the empowerment of distributed expertise networks throughout the firm.     

Privacy,trust and policy-making: Challenges and responses

The authors contend that the emerging ubiquitous Information Society (aka ambient intelligence, pervasive computing, ubiquitous networking and so on) will raise many privacy and trust issues that are context dependent. These issues will pose many challenges for policy-makers and stakeholders because people's notions of privacy and trust are different and shifting. People's attitudes towards privacy and protecting their personal data can vary significantly according to differing circumstances. In addition, notions of privacy and trust are changing over time. The authors provide numerous examples of the challenges facing policy-makers and identify some possible responses, but they see a need for improvements in the policy-making process in order to deal more effectively with varying contexts. They also identify some useful policy-making tools. They conclude that the broad brush policies of the past are not likely to be adequate to deal with the new challenges and that we are probably entering an era that will require development of “micro-policies”. While the new technologies will pose many challenges, perhaps the biggest challenge of all will be to ensure coherence of these micro-policies.     

The unintended consequence of doorstep consumer protection: surprise,reciprocation, and consistency

Cooling-off periods are universally employed in doorstep selling regimes. Paired with a right for consumers to withdraw from the contract, this legal instrument seeks to protect consumers against superior skilled and knowledgeable sellers thus restoring the balance of interests. According to prior literature, cooling-off periods also serve an economic function by moderating the abuse of market power, by mitigating problems of hidden characteristics, and by promoting consumer choice. If their drawbacks—mainly the creation of consumer moral hazard and shifting of risk to the seller—can be contained, cooling-off periods are hence supposed to yield efficiency gains. By thinking out of this box, the present paper showcases that cooling-off periods also establish the perverse incentive for the seller to increase consumer compliance to a level which outlasts the cooling-off period. I argue that inevitably occurring psychological factors and transaction costs from the cooling-off regime amplify each other, thus creating a hard-lock status-quo bias. Based on behavioural insights and transaction cost theory, I predict that an inefficiently high number of consumers will enter into a doorstep contract and that, at the same time, the number of cancelled contracts will be inefficiently low. Consequently, I propose to change the default inherent in current cooling-off regimes from presumed consent to presumed withdrawal in order to debias consumers’ withdrawal decision.     

Unemployment,imprisonment, and the stability of punishment hypothesis: Some results using cointegration and error correction models

A version of the stability of punishment hypothesis is used to illustrate the concept of cointegration and its relationship to error correction models. The hypothesis is then tested and rejected using data from England and Wales. Finally, a dynamic time-series model relating imprisonment to convictions, crime, and Unemployment is developed and tested.The empirical results in this work are based upon those originally prepared for a paper to be given by the author and Steve Box at the meeting of the American Society of Criminology held in Montreal in November 1987. Steve Box died in September 1987 before it could be completed.The paper is dedicated to his memory and it is hoped that he would have approved its content, if not, perhaps, the dryness of its form.     

The Borrowed View: Privacy, Propriety, and the Entanglements of Property

A dominant characterization celebrates property as a means to attain privacy and autonomy. Drawing on recent scholarship, I compare this idea with a proprietarian perspective, which emphasizes the ways in which private ownership comes freighted with public responsibilities. The garden, I shall argue, reveals both dimensions to property. Drawing from gardening debates over the past century and an empirical survey of gardening in Vancouver, Canada, I conclude by arguing, first, that the ends of property are more diverse than we suppose, and second, that these two conceptions should in fact be thought of not as incompatible and opposed, but as entangled and interrelated. While judicial and academic evaluations tend to rely on a binary view of property, so that privacy and propriety seem to live in different spaces, my findings suggest a more fluid cohabitation.