[LINK] Professors Call Both Sides Wrong on Privacy

Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au
Thu Oct 26 11:36:04 AEST 2006

Bernard Robertson-Dunn said:
> Professors Call Both Sides Wrong on Privacy
> Sue Bushell
> 24/10/2006 12:40:06
> http://www.cio.com.au/index.php/id;1659801180;fp;4;fpid;21

Absolutely typical of economists.  The analysis is predicated on the
assumption that economics is what matters, and all that matters.  Such
wussy notions as human rights, social values and political freedoms simply
don't exist as far as they're concerned - except of course to the extent
that they can be reduced to a dollar-value.

There have been lots of papers of this ilk over the years, and this one
will have as little impact as its predecessors, because it lacks any
vestige of relevance to the real world.

> Should households be granted the right to control their personal
> information and to refuse to give it out, as some privacy advocates
> insist? Or are those economists right who argue that privacy in any form
>  is harmful since it restricts information flow and hence inhibits
> decision-making, increases transaction costs and encourages fraud?
> Two professors at University of California, Berkeley's Haas School of
> Business have recently weighed in on this seemingly endless debate to
> argue their conclusion that neither approach is right.
> In an article in the September issue of the journal Quantitative
> Marketing and Economics, Professors Benjamin Hermalin and Michael Katz
> note that privacy can be efficient in certain circumstances but that
> privacy property rights - personal control over one's personal
> information - are often worthless.
> "Our analysis demonstrates that there are complicated tradeoffs missed
> by both sides of the debate," they write. "Certainly in the case of
> employment, changes in privacy policy can make some households winners
> and others losers."
> The authors note that there has been a long history of contentious
> policy debates and governmental efforts to protect personal privacy,
> particularly the ability to maintain control over the dissemination of
> personally identifiable data: privacy as secrecy.
> And they say recent technological developments in information collection
>  and processing have heightened privacy concerns, with online bookstores
>  knowing what you like to read, TiVo reporting personal viewing habits
> to  the company's central database, and airlines keeping a record of
> where  you travel. Meanwhile every year privacy bills are introduced in
> state  legislatures and the US Congress in response to privacy concerns,
> yet  there is little consensus on the appropriate approach.
> "There are many calls for strong governmental intervention to restrict
> the use of personally identifiable data. However, there are also calls
> simply to establish appropriate property rights to information on the
> grounds that market forces will then lead to efficient privacy levels,"
> they say.
> The authors note that proponents of the Chicago School have labelled
> privacy harmful to efficiency because it stops information flows that
> would otherwise lead to improved levels of economic exchange. And they
> agree there are some situations in which allowing households to reveal
> personally identifiable information is beneficial because it allows
> firms to make tailored offers that facilitate transactions that
> otherwise might not have occurred.
> Yet they insist that, contrary to the Chicago School argument, the flow
> of information from one trading partner to the other can reduce ex post
> trade efficiency when the increase in information does not lead to
> symmetrically or fully informed parties.
> With so many people making extreme claims in discussions of privacy and
> related public policy, and with so little understanding of the
> underlying economics, it is important to identify the fundamental forces
>  clearly, they conclude.
> "Both sides of the e-commerce privacy debate have overstated their
> cases," they say.
> While failing to come to any definitive conclusions about whether one
> can identify conditions under which public policy should or should not
> promote privacy, they authors conclude that the assignment of privacy
> rights to personally identifiable information may have no effect on
> agents' equilibrium welfare levels and need not lead to an efficient
> equilibrium privacy level.
> "In some situations, the only effective policy would be explicitly to
> block the dissemination or use of such information. Public policy could
> block dissemination in several ways. One is to make it illegal to reveal
>  personally identifiable data. Another is to destroy employment or
> prison  records or other forms of tangible evidence, which would prevent
> households from credibly revealing the information even if they chose to
>  do so. A related policy would be to refuse to enforce sanctions against
>  people who lie about their protected characteristics," they conclude.
> --
> Regards
> brd
> Bernard Robertson-Dunn
> Sydney Australia
> brd at iimetro.com.au
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Roger Clarke      http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/

Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd
78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, 6288 6916
mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au
Visiting Prof. Baker Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre, UNSW
Visiting Prof. eCommerce Program, University of Hong Kong
Visiting Prof. Computer Sci,  Australian National University

More information about the Link mailing list