Eric Goldman writes:
What does “privacy” mean? It’s a simple question that lacks a single answer, even from privacy experts. Without a universally shared definition of privacy, scholars have instead attempted to “define” privacy by taxonomizing problems that they think should fit under the privacy umbrella. However, this taxonomical approach to defining “privacy” has no natural boundary. Virtually every policy question could have privacy implications, so the privacy umbrella keeps expanding to account for those implications.
To privacy advocates, an ever-expanding scope for privacy law might sound like a good thing. For the rest of us, it’s unquestionably not a good thing. We don’t want privacy experts making policy decisions about topics outside their swimlanes. They lack the requisite expertise, so they will make serious and avoidable policy errors. Furthermore, in the inevitable balancing act between competing policy interests, they will overweight privacy considerations to the exclusion of other critical considerations. (This is a hammer/nail problem–if you’re a privacy hammer, everything looks like a privacy nail).
Read more at Technology & Marketing Law Blog.