CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 178Privacy, Security, and Data ProtectionDigitalization, Law, and RegulationEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Data retention and the panoptic society: the social benefits of forgetfulness

Open access
Blanchette, Jean-François, Johnson, Deborah G.·2002·The Information Society
DOI 10.1080/01972240252818216
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Modern information systems not only capture a seemingly endless amount of transactional data, but also tend to retain it for indefinite periods of time. We argue that privacy policies must address not only collection and access to transactional information, but also its timely disposal. One unintended side effect of data retention is the disappearance of social forgetfulness, which allows individuals a second chance, the opportunity for a fresh start in life. We examine three domains in which social policy has explicitly recognized the importance of such a principle: bankruptcy law, juvenile crime records, and credit reports. In each case, we frame the issue in terms of the social benefits of forgetfulness, rather than in terms of individual privacy protection. We examine how different policy approaches to privacy might handle the retention of data and propose a comprehensive policy that includes a variety of strategies. The broad conclusion of the article is that data retention and disposal should be addressed as a part of a broader and comprehensive policy approach, rather than in a piecemeal fashion or as an afterthought.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01972240252818216

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Digital memories make possible a comprehensive reconstruction of our words and deeds and strongly suggest we are moving into a panoptic society, constraining our willingness to say what we mean.

    “Currently, digital memories, comprising of the vast amount of data currently collected as we go about our everyday lives, make possible a comprehensive reconstruction of our words and deeds and, even if they are long past, they strongly suggest we are moving into a panoptic society as they create a temporal version of Bentham's panopticon [125], constraining our willingness to say what we mean [”

    From Forgetting personal data and revoking consent under the GDPR: Challenges and proposed solutions (2018) · cites this paper as [120]

  • In the digital world, our digital records constitute an array of potential memories, the very existence of which may compromise our ability to forget, or move on.

    “Although in the paper-and-ink world, as explained in [120], the sheer cumbersomeness of archiving and later finding information often implied and promoted a form of institutional forgetfulness-a situation with parallels to human memory, in the digital world our digital records constitute an array of potential memories, the very existence of which may compromise our ability to forget, or move on [”

    From Forgetting personal data and revoking consent under the GDPR: Challenges and proposed solutions (2018) · cites this paper as [120]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Bean, Philip. 1981. Punishment: A philosophical and criminological enquiry. Oxford: Martin Robertson.
  2. Chaum, David. 1985. Security without identi cation: Transactions sys- tems to make big brother obsolete. Communications of the ACM 28:1030-1044.
  3. Chaum, David. 1992. Achieving electronicprivacy.Scienti c American 267(2):96-101.
  4. Davies, Simon G. 1997. Re-engineeringthe right to privacy. In Technol- ogy and privacy: The new landscape, eds. P. Agre and M. Rotenberg, pp. 143-165. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  5. Skupsky, Donald S. 1993. Establishing retention periods for elec- tronic records. Records Management Quaterly 27(2):40, 43-43, 49.
  6. L. Introna, pp. 121-126. London: London School of Economics.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Blanchette, J.-F., & Johnson, D. G.
Affiliations
  • Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (US)
  • University of Virginia (US)
ORCID
Venue
The Information Society
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2002-01
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
33-45
ISSN
  • 0197-2243 (ISSN-L)
  • 1087-6537
DOI
10.1080/01972240252818216
OpenAlex
W2091840223
Cited by
178
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
14.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
The Information Society (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
data retention, data disposal, privacy policies, insolvency law, credit reports, second chances, social policy, information systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review