Internet Privacy

The issues

The subject of consumer privacy on the internet provides an excellent example of the two ways in which tradition and religious faith can aid us in resolving contemporary ethical problems. Once we have formulated our ethical questions in secular terms, our Judaism can help us in evaluating the merits of the two sides; in addition, a Torah perspective may awaken us to new issues which are little represented in the secular debate.

The Jewish Perspective
BACKGROUND

Let us review the background of this debate. Most advertising today is done through mass media, such as television and radio broadcasting, mass-circulation periodicals, and public internet sites. Since only a small fraction of those exposed to the message are potential new customers, most of the advertiser's budget is wasted.

But collecting consumer information on the internet enables the targeting of precisely those consumers who are likely to be interested in a particular pitch. This is desirable for the advertiser, who can concentrate his ad budget on consumers who are likely to be interested in his message; and also for the consumer, who is presented with more advertisements for products and services which interest him and with fewer messages which he finds annoying and irrelevant.

At the same time, such information collection presents immense privacy dilemmas. Most people would shudder to think that neighbors, creditors, competitors or even distant busybodies might have easy access to all of their buying and browsing habits.

THE CURRENT DEBATE

Currently, the question of Internet privacy is formulated primarily in terms of consent. While observers generally agree that users have a right to some control over information provided by their online habits, they disagree about how they are to do so. One possibility is an "opt-out" policy, in which all information is considered public unless the user explicitly expresses his desire to keep it private; the other is an "opt-in" policy in which service providers may collect information only when explicitly permitted by the user.

Many advocates, while accepting the basic focus on privacy, think that consent is not the solution and that regulations are required. They suggest that an "opt-out" policy is problematic because it involves minimal consent. And even an "opt-in" policy may lack adequate consent: Perhaps the consumer lacks enough information to give truly informed consent, or perhaps there is a degree of coercion because withholding consent has negative consequences, such as limited access to service.

Jewish tradition has an interesting insight regarding consent. The Talmud (Yoma 4b) points out that in the Torah, HaShem explicitly tells Moshe when His words are to be transmitted to the people. Otherwise, Moshe understands that the prophecy is intended for him alone. From this we learn that in general it is proper to refrain from repeating what we hear to others unless the speaker consents. This source seems to support "opt-in" over "opt-out", suggesting that information should be considered private unless there is explicit consent.

The issue of informed consent is also prominent in Jewish sources. For instance, the Talmud states that if a person allows someone else use of his property without full understanding of the extent or value of his legal rights, his waiver is void. (Bava Metzia 66b.) We can extrapolate to the situation of Internet privacy, where the consumer may not fully understand the value of the information he is allowing the collector to use - a value which can easily reach hundreds of pounds.

A common phenomenon which may undermine informed consent is "data mining", sophisticated analysis of seemingly innocent data. This practice can be likened to examining someone's rubbish. If someone sees me throw out a can of soda, they have learned little about my lifestyle. But if someone were to carefully scrutinize every scrap of garbage that left my home, they would know practically everything about my private affairs! If I give a neighborhood child permission to rummage through my rubbish bin for something useful, I don't have in mind that he may prepare a detailed catalog of every item I discard!

PRIVACY VS. MODESTY

So far we have examined ways in which Jewish tradition lends weight to some aspect of the current dialogue. But Jewish tradition not only guides us within the conventional discussion, but also helps us to look beyond it. In the current context, a Torah perspective would convince us that we should consider not only privacy and consent, but also the ideal of modesty and discretion.

Here, "privacy" refers to what a person would prefer to keep hidden, and "modesty" to refer to what normatively ought to remain hidden. Jewish tradition affirms that a certain part of our being can flourish only in protected seclusion, and warns us against a life lived in the public thoroughfare even if a person might be persuaded to consent to such exposure. Forcing someone to reveal intimate details of his or her private life is an invasion of privacy; but even a person who readily reveals these details to others is guilty of indiscretion.

Modesty is a paramount value in Jewish tradition. In the Torah, Bilaam comments, "How goodly are your tents, O Yaakov!" Rashi explains that the tents of the Jewish people are goodly because they are carefully arranged so that no looks into his neighbor's dwelling. (Numbers 24:5.) And Jewish law asks us to avert our gaze if we see someone engaging in a private activity, even an innocent activity which is not being concealed. Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi writes, "Neighbors need to be as careful as possible not to look at each other's activities in their common courtyard." (Shulchan Arukh HaRav Nizkei Mamon 11.)

Breaches of modesty, even when they are consensual, can be very destructive to society. For one thing, exposing personal habits can contribute to a busybody atmosphere where everybody is minding everybody else's business. The Torah tells us, "Don't go about as a talebearer" (Leviticus 19:16), and our Sages emphasized that spreading about even innocent information about people may lead to strife.

Another consideration is that scrutiny damages our sense of dignity and restraint. Research studies on prisoners and others who lack privacy confirm this effect. Our Sages, recognizing these considerations, say that if someone is determined to commit an immoral act, he should at least do so in utter secrecy. Then the act won't contribute to public brazenness, and the individual will find it easier to correct his behavior, since his public image is unaffected. (Kiddushin 40a and commentaries.)

Of course there is a difference between statistical information about a person's purchases and browsing behavior on the one hand and gossip about his personal habits on the other. The sources mentioned do not militate against the collection of personal information about Internet usage, especially given the great commercial value of this information as we explained in the background section. But by impressing on us the human problems inherent in situations of surveillance, they introduce a new and valuable dimension to the discussion. At the very least, they suggest that each individual should carefully consider the decision to consent to surveillance of his or her on-line activities.

CONCLUSION

The debate over Internet consent is focused on what human beings want. But a Torah perspective reminds us that we must also concern ourselves with who human beings are. The character of the individual and of society as a whole requires the shelter of modesty for its development, and an environment of constant surveillance and information gathering has the potential to undermine this shelter. While we need to acknowledge the commercial value of Internet information gathering, we should also keep in mind the humanistic and spiritual dimensions of this issue.

Asher Meir