## 3 Discussion  
### Privacy and Data Protection: Old Regimes in a New Age  
There exist, of course, many types of privacy, including bodily, spatial, communication, proprietary, intellectual, decisional, associational, and behavioral privacy [14]. While new technologies, such as remotely operated web cams and various forms of smart technology, have the potential to invade these forms of privacy as well, our focus here is on what is often termed \"informational privacy\" with regards to records and data in the cloud. Privacy is a concept in disarray. Nobody can articulate what it means. As one commentator has observed, privacy suffers from \"an embarrassment of meanings.\" Privacy is far too vague a concept to guide adjudication and lawmaking, as abstract incantations of the importance of \"privacy\" do not fare well when pitted against more concretely stated countervailing interests. --[PERSON] ([15], pp. 477-478). Discussing \"privacy\" as a legal category is challenging at best; as [PERSON] states, \"Privacy seems to be about everything, and therefore it appears to be nothing\" ([15], p. 479). The very conception of privacy is largely dependent upon context; according to [PERSON], our conceptions of privacy result from our _\"juridified intuitions_--intuitions that reflect our knowledge of, and commitment to, the basic legal values of our culture\" ([16], p. 1160). The American _Black's Law Dictionary_ defines privacy as nothing less than \"the right to personal autonomy\" ([17]). More broadly speaking, when Canadians and Americans use the term, they are typically referring to \"privacy as an aspect of liberty [...] the right to freedom from intrusions by the state\" ([16], p. 1160). Thus, both Canadian and American privacy laws tend to focus on the freedom to control access to one's private life, and especially on the category of private information generally considered \"personally identifiable information\" (PII). It is an approach by which one can consent to the loss of privacy, and wherein the need for privacy is often explicitly counterbalanced by the need to use PII for any of a myriad of purposes. The European concept of privacy, by comparison, views it \"as an aspect of dignity\" ([16], p. 1160). Indeed, \"there is no such word [as privacy] in French, even though the French are highly private and very much concerned about the protection of their personal information. If you look for a translation, you will find that 'privacy' is translated into French as _'intintite_', which is inaccurate, or very narrow. The French _'intintite_' is actually equivalent to 'intimacy' in English and has little to do with the American concept of 'privacy' or 'information privacy'\" ([18]). Unlike those of North America, European courts have voided property rights acquired through perfectly legal means to others' private images and information on the basis that their publication could harm the dignity of the person who originally consented to the use of his/her private information: \"One's privacy, like other aspects of one's honor, [is] not a market commodity that could simply be definitively sold\" ([16], p. 1176). The \"juridified intuitions\" underlying European understandings of privacy cannot abide human dignity as a commodity. The Canadian/American concept of \"privacy\" aligns much more closely with the European concept of \"data protection.\"  
Both the Canadian/American \"privacy\" and the European \"data protection\" seek to draw boundaries around information and records, fencing them off from public scrutiny. Such regulations--rightly--assume that not all people can be trusted with all information. For example, the Privacy Act of Canada seeks to \"protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves held by a government institution,\" where \"personal information means information about an identifiable individual that is recorded in any form\" ([19]).