JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. The University of Pennsylvania Law Review is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to University of Pennsylvania Law Review. ARTICLESPrivacy is a concept in disarray. Nobody can articulate what it means. As one commentator has observed, privacy suffers from "an embarrassment of + Associate Professor, George Washington University Law School; J.D. Yale. A project such as thisone that attempts a taxonomy of the sprawling and complex concept of privacycannot be created by one individual alone. I owe an enormous debt of gratitude to many people who provided helpful comments on the manuscript or parts thereof at various stages in its development: Thanks to Michael Weisberg and Brian Leiter for directing me to useful resources on systematics. I would also like to thank my research assistants, Poornima Ravishankar, Jessica Kahn, and Tiffany Stedman for their excellent assistance. Additionally, I benefited from helpful comments when I presented this paper at a workshop at Washington University and at a conference sponsored by the International Association of Privacy Professionals. The George Washington University School of Law scholarship fund provided generous support for this Article.) This content downloaded from 195.235.144.193 on Tue, 15 Jul 2014 06:34:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 154: 477meanings. " Privacy is far too vague a concept to guide adjudication and lawmaking, as abstract incantations of the importance of "privacy" do not fare well when pitted against more concretely stated countervailing interests.In I960, the famous torts scholar William Prosser attempted to make sense of the landscape of privacy law by identifying four different interests. But Prosser focused only on tort law, and the law of information privacy is significantly more vast and complex, extending to Fourth Amendment law, the constitutional right to information privacy, evidentiary privileges, dozens of federal privacy statutes, and hundreds of state statutes. Moreover, Prosser wrote over 40 years ago, and new technologies have given rise to a panoply of new privacy harms.A new taxonomy to understand privacy violations is thus sorely needed. This Article develops a taxonomy to identify privacy problems in a comprehensive and concrete manner. It endeavors to guide the law toward a more coherent understanding of privacy and to serve as a framework for the future development of the field of privacy law.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract