CRITICAL SURVEY OF
THE INCREASINGLY PREVALENT SYSTEMS FOR WATCHING over people, the massive storage and analytic capabilities of information systems, and the astonishing powers of dissemination of digital media discussed in Part I are not all controversial. But inevitably, with persisting regularity, certain systems invoke storms of protest and perplexed disquiet as reflected in popular opinion surveys and vocal, sometimes coordinated advocacy by nongovernmental organizations. As often as not, proponents of these systems are the industry representatives and governmental agencies who have implemented them. Popular media have created a record of these antagonistic exchanges, which reveal mutual suspicion, indignation, worried resignation, and something between grudging and trusting acceptance by those who are the subjects of monitoring, profiling, and disclosure.
A number of questions are worth asking. Why do we care? Why do we resist some systems and embrace others? What makes them troubling and controversial? What ought we, as individuals and societies, do about them—leave them be, regulate, or prohibit? And, how do we go about formulating legitimate answers to these questions?
Some believe that people's preferences and interests ought to serve as touchstones for a solution. When controversy arises over a system, it should be possible to map out distinct stakeholder groups and demonstrate how their respective interests a re promoted or suppressed. To be sure, such an approach to resolving controversial matters—maximizing