Privacy in Context¶
Nissenbaum, H. (2010). Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford University Press.
Cited by¶
3 citations across 3 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Confidentiality
- An analysis supplying fewer than four terms has not identified the prime.
This sourceArgues that protection attaches to context-relative norms of information flow rather than to intrinsic sensitivity, so widely circulated content can still be governed and obscure content need not be.
- An analysis supplying fewer than four terms has not identified the prime.
- Information Use License
- Every awkward property follows — enforcement is retrospective, remedies compensate rather than restore, revocation constrains the future without unwinding the past, and the instrument's real work is done by whatever keeps a recipient willing to be bound after it already holds what it wanted.
This sourceFrames information norms as constraints on flows, with transmission principles naming the terms on which information passes from one party to another, rather than as controls on access.
- Every awkward property follows — enforcement is retrospective, remedies compensate rather than restore, revocation constrains the future without unwinding the past, and the instrument's real work is done by whatever keeps a recipient willing to be bound after it already holds what it wanted.
- Public vs. Private Contexts
- A person might have a right to privacy (freedom from interference) without exhibiting behavior changes in public versus private; conversely, a person might exhibit strong public-private divergence in settings where privacy is not a salient concern (e.g., open-office workplaces where privacy is legitimately limited), a normative-versus-descriptive distinction Nissenbaum (2010) develops through her framework of contextual integrity.
This sourceDevelops contextual integrity as the normative framework for privacy: privacy is governed by context-specific norms of information flow, distinguishing the descriptive mechanism of public-private behavioral divergence from the normative claim of a privacy right.
- A person might have a right to privacy (freedom from interference) without exhibiting behavior changes in public versus private; conversely, a person might exhibit strong public-private divergence in settings where privacy is not a salient concern (e.g., open-office workplaces where privacy is legitimately limited), a normative-versus-descriptive distinction Nissenbaum (2010) develops through her framework of contextual integrity.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 3 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:1af3ff0dc0b0 · see in the full table