Relational privacy and the networked governance of the self

References

• Auburn, J. (2000). Legal professional privilege: Law and theory. Haywards Heath: Hart.
   Google Scholar
• Baptiste Holloway, M. (2008). One image, one thousand incriminating words: Images of brain activity and the privilege against self-incrimination. Temple Journal of Science, Technology & Environmental Law, 27(1), 141–175.
   Google Scholar
• Barak, A., Boniel-Nissim, M., & Suler, J. (2008). Fostering empowerment in online support groups. Computers in Human Behaviour, 24(5), 1867–1883.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benhabib, S. (1994). Situating the self: Gender, community and postmodernism in contemporary ethics. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Braithwaite, J., Charlesworth, H., & Soares, A. (2012). Networked governance of freedom and tyranny: Peace in Timore-Lest. Canberra: Australian National University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brison, S. J. (1999). Relational autonomy and freedom of expression. In C. Mackenzie & N. Stoljar (Eds.), Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self (pp. 280–300). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burrell, J. (2016). How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burris, S., Drahos, P., & Shearing, C. (2005). Nodal governance. Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, 30(2005), 30–58.
   Google Scholar
• Cadwalladr, C., & Graham-Harrison, E. (2018, March 17). Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, S. (1997). Interpreting the personal: Expression and the formation of feelings. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chalmers, K., & Cunningham, A. (2013). Privilege from Canadian and U.S. Perspectives: Reverence vs. Skepticism. Law and Business Review of the Americas, 19(2013), 317–321.
   Google Scholar
• Choe, E. K., et al. (2015, September). Sleep tight: Low-burden, self-monitoring technology for capturing and reflecting on sleep behaviors. Proceedings of the 2015 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing (pp. 121–132), Osaka Japan: Association for Computing Machinery.
   Google Scholar
• Christman, J. (2004). Relational autonomy, liberal individualism, and the social constitution of selves. Philosophical Studies, 117(1–2), 143–164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. E. (2012). Configuring the networked self: Law, code, and the play of everyday practice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Colvin, E. (2015). The dangers of using social media in the legal profession: An ethical examination in professional responsibility. University of Detroit Mercy Law Review, 92(1), 1–28.
   Google Scholar
• Craig, C. J. (2011). Copyright, communication and culture: Towards a relational theory of copyright law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Demaske, C. (2004). Modern power and the first amendment: Reassessing hate speech. Communication Law and Policy, 9(3), 273–316.
   Google Scholar
• Demaske, C. (2008). Free speech zones: Silencing the political dissident. Democratic Communiqué, 22(1), 41–59.
   Google Scholar
• Diaconis, A. J. (2014). The religion of alcoholics anonymous (AA): Applying the clergy privilege to certain AA communications. Cornell Law Review, 99(2014), 1185–1226.
   Google Scholar
• Drahos, P., & Braithwaite, J. (2000). Global business regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Everything we know about Facebook’s secret mood manipulation experiment. (2014, September 8). The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/everything-we-know-about-facebooks-secret-mood-manipulation-experiment/373648/
   Google Scholar
• Facebook. (2018, March 28). It’s time to make our privacy tools easier to find. Retrieved from https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/03/privacy-shortcuts/
   Google Scholar
• Farvo, P. J. (2013). Inviting scrutiny: How technologies are eroding the attorney-client privilege. Richmond Journal of Law and Technology, 20(1), 1–93.
   Google Scholar
• Feinstein, B. A., Hershenberg, R., Bhatia, V., Latack, J. A., Meuwly, N., & Davila, J. (2013). Negative social comparison on Facebook and depressive symptoms: Rumination as a mechanism. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2(3), 161–170.
   Google Scholar
• Ford, S. (2011). Reconceptualizing the public/private distinction in the age of information technology. Information, Communication & Society, 14(4), 550–567.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, 25/26(1990), 56–80.
   Google Scholar
• Fuchs, C. (2010). Labor in informational capitalism and on the internet. The Information Society: An International Journal, 26(3), 179–196.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuchs, C. (2012). The political economy of privacy on Facebook. Television & New Media, 13(2), 139–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuchs, C., & Sevigiani, S. (2013). What is digital labour? What is digital work? What’s their difference? And why do these questions matter for understanding social media? Communication, Capitalism & Critique, 11(2), 237–293.
   Google Scholar
• Hern, A. (2018, May 6). Cambridge Analytica: How did it turn clicks into votes? The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/06/cambridge-analytica-how-turn-clicks-into-votes-christopher-wylie
   Google Scholar
• Hiemstra, R. (2001). Uses and benefits of journal writing. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2001(90), 19–26.
   Google Scholar
• Imwinkelried, E. (2003). The new Wigmore: An essay on rethinking the foundation of evidentiary privileges. Boston University Law Review, 83, 315–344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jurgenson, N., & Rey, P. J. (2012). Comment on Sarah Ford’s ‘reconceptualization of privacy and publicity’. Information, Communication & Society, 15(2), 287–293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koops, B. J. (2003). The shifting ‘balance’ between criminal investigation and privacy: A case study of communications interception law in the Netherlands. Information, Communication & Society, 6(3), 380–403.
   Google Scholar
• Lajoie, S. P., et al. (2013). Technology-rich tools to support self-regulated learning and performance in medicine. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 229–242). New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lejeune, P. (2009). On diary. J. D. Popkin & J. Rak (Eds.), K. Durnin (Trans.)Manoa: University of Hawaii.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. (1984). Testimonial privileges and the preferences of friendship. Duke Law Journal, 1984(4), 631–662.
   Google Scholar
• Lupton, D. (2013). The digitally engaged patient: Self-monitoring and self care in the digital health era. Social Theory & Health, 11(3), 256–270.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lupton, D. (2014, August). Self-tracking modes: Reflexive self-monitoring and data practices. Paper for the ‘imminent citizenships: Personhood and identity politics in the informatic age’ workshop, Australian National University (ANU). Canberra.
   Google Scholar
• Lyon, D. (2002). Everyday surveillance: Personal data and social classifications. Information, Communication & Society, 5(2), 242–257.
   Google Scholar
• Maclaren, K. (2009). Emotional metamorpheses: The role of others in becoming a subject. In S. Campbell, L. Meynell, & S. Sherwin (Eds.), Embodiment and agency (pp. 25–45). University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marthews, A., & Tucker, C. (2015). Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2412564
   Google Scholar
• Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2014). Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media. New Media & Society, 16(7), 1051–1067.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massanari, A. (2017). # Gamergate and the Fappening: How Reddit’s algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures. New Media & Society, 19(3), 329–346.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McRobbie, A. (1993). Feminism, postmodernism and the real me. Theory, Culture & Society, 10, 127–142.
   Google Scholar
• Moscaritolo, A. (2017, December 4). Facebook rolling out ad-free messenger kids IOs app. PC Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.pcmag.com/news/357718/facebook-rolling-out-ad-free-messenger-kids-ios-app
   Google Scholar
• Nedelsky, J. (2011). Law’s relations: A relational theory of self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• New, J. G. (2008). If you could read my mind: Implications of neurological evidence for twenty-first century criminal jurisprudence. Journal of Legal Medicine, 29(2), 179–198.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nissenbaum, H. (2009). Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nissenbaum, H. (2011). A contextual approach to privacy online. Daedalus, 140(4), 32–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC). (2017). 2016–17 Annual report to Parliament on the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Privacy Act. Retrieved from https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-actions-and-decisions/ar_index/201617/ar_201617/#heading-0-0-3-1-3-3
   Google Scholar
• Oshana, M. A. L. (2005). Autonomy and self-identity. In J. P. Christman & J. Anderson (Eds.), Autonomy and the challenges to liberalism: New essays (pp. 77–97). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Papacharissi, Z. (2010). Conclusion: A networked self. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp. 304–318). New York: Taylor and Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Sacharoff, L. (2012). The relational nature of privacy. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 16(4), 1249–1303.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, P. M. (1999a). Internet privacy and the state. Connecticut Law Review, 32(1999–2000), 815–859.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, P. M. (1999b). Privacy and democracy in cyberspace. Vanderbilt Law Review, 52(1999), 1609–1702.
   Google Scholar
• Solove, D. J. (2006). A taxonomy of privacy. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154(3), 477–560.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sonsteng, J. O., & MoylanJr, C. E. (1990). The privilege against compelled self-incrimination. William Mitchell Law Review, 16(1), 249–307.
   Google Scholar
• Stoljar, N. (2015). Feminist perspectives on autonomy. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford: The Metaphysics Research Lab Center for the Study of Language and Information.
   Google Scholar
• Terpstra, J. (2017). ‘Not just one node among many’– plural policing in a state-dominated context: The case of Austria. Policing and Society, 27(1), 68–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trosow, S., Tremblay, S., & Weiss, D. (2016). Submission to the office of the privacy commissioner of Canada: Consultation on consent and privacy. London, ON: Scholarship@Western Institutional Repository.
   Google Scholar
• Westin, A. F. (1966). Science, privacy, and freedom: Issues and proposals for the 1970’s. Part I – The current impact of surveillance on privacy. Columbia Law Review, 66(6), 1003–1050.
   Google Scholar
• Westin, A. F. (1967). Privacy and freedom. New York: Atheneum.
   Google Scholar
• Wharton, C. M., Johnston, C. S., Cunningham, B. K., & Sterner, D. (2014). Dietary self-monitoring, but not dietary quality, improves with use of smartphone app technology in an 8-week weight loss trial. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 46(5), 440–444.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, M., & Hunt, A. (2000). Citizenship: Care of the self, character and personality. Citizenship Studies, 4(2), 93–116.
   Google Scholar
• Wickramasinghe, N. (2010). Evaluation of human action: Foucault’s power/knowledge corollary. In M. Saito, N. Wickramasinghe, M. Fujii, & E. Geisler (Eds.), Redesigning innovative healthcare operation and the role of knowledge management (pp. 106–124). s.l.: ICI Global.
   Google Scholar
• Williamson, B. (2015). Algorithmic skin: Health-tracking technologies, personal analytics and the biopedagogies of digitized health and physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 20(1), 133–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WSB-TV. (2016, February 4). Fitness trackers can be used against you in a court of law. NewsChannel9.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, T. (2017). Antitrust via rulemaking. Colorado Technology Law Journal, 16(1), 33–64.
   Google Scholar
• Young, N. (2012). The virtual self: How our digital lives are altering the world around us. New York: McClelland & Stewart.
   Google Scholar