• Chris Berg
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Classical Liberalism book series (PASTCL)


The introduction outlines the privacy challenges faced in contemporary society. It considers the large amounts of data collected by firms, states, and digital equipment in our everyday lives, and how the collection of that data makes us vulnerable to revealing personal information about ourselves. The introduction also introduces classical liberalism and classical liberal thought about privacy and technological change and presents a brief outline of the classical liberal case for privacy.


  1. Apthorpe, Noah, Dillon Reisman, Srikanth Sundaresan, Arvind Narayanan, and Feamster Nick. “Spying on the Smart Home: Privacy Attacks and Defenses on Encrypted Iot Traffic.” arXiv, no. 1708.05044, 16 August 2017.Google Scholar
  2. Berg, Alastair, Chris Berg, Sinclair Davidson, and Jason Potts, “Identity as Input to Exchange,” SSRN, 2018.Google Scholar
  3. Berg, Chris. The Libertarian Alternative. Carlton, VIC: Melbourne University, 2016.Google Scholar
  4. ———. “Medicare Details Available on Dark Web Is Just Tip of Data Breach Iceberg.” Canberra Times, 17 July 2017.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, David. Law, Sexuality, and Society: The Enforcement of Morals in Classical Athens. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. De Montjoye, Yves-Alexandre, César A. Hidalgo, Michel Verleysen, and Vincent D Blondel. “Unique in the Crowd: The Privacy Bounds of Human Mobility.” Scientific Reports 3 (2013): 1376.Google Scholar
  7. Johnson, Bobbie. “Privacy No Longer a Social Norm, Says Facebook Founder.” The Guardian, 11 January 2010.Google Scholar
  8. Klein, Daniel B., and Kevin Frei. “Liberalism Unreliquished.”
  9. Kuznicki, Jason. Technology and the End of Authority: What Is Government For? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017.Google Scholar
  10. Miller, John J., and Stephen Moore. “A National Id System: Big Brother’s Solution to Illegal Immigration.” In Policy Analysis. Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. Neill, Elizabeth. Rites of Privacy and the Privacy Trade: On the Limits of Protection for the Self. Montreal and Ithaca: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  12. RMIT Property Services. “Swanston Academic Building: Building 80 User Guide.”Google Scholar
  13. Singleton, Solveig. “Encryption Policy for the 21st Century: A Future without Government-Prescribed Key Recovery.” In Policy Analysis. Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 1998.Google Scholar
  14. Smith, Bruce. Liberty and Liberalism. Sydney: Centre for Independent Studies, 2005. 1887.Google Scholar
  15. Sofsky, Wolfgang. Privacy: A Manifesto. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
  16. Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr. Cancer Ward. Translated by Alexander Dolberg. New York: Random House, 2011.Google Scholar
  17. Song, Chaoming, Zehui Qu, Nicholas Blumm, and Albert-László Barabási. “Limits of Predictability in Human Mobility.” Science 327, no. 5968 (2010): 1018–21.Google Scholar
  18. Spacks, Patricia Meyer. Privacy: Concealing the Eighteenth-Century Self. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  19. Spry, Ian. “Reject the Australia Card.” IPA Review, no. 1, Autumn (1986): 4.Google Scholar
  20. Sweeney, Latanya. “K-Anonymity: A Model for Protecting Privacy.” International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 10, no. 5 (2002): 557–70.Google Scholar
  21. Tabarrok, Alex, and Tyler Cowen. “The End of Asymmetric Information.” Cato Unbound, 6 April 2015.Google Scholar
  22. Warren, Samuel D., and Louis D. Brandeis. “The Right to Privacy.” Harvard Law Review 4, no. 5 (1890): 193–220.Google Scholar
  23. Westin, Alan F. Privacy and Freedom. New York: Atheneum, 1967.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris Berg
    • 1
  1. 1.RMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations