Right-to-Privacy Theory

A Right-to-Privacy Theory is a natural right to privacy (to share information selectively to others).

• Context:
  • It can be instantiated in a Privacy Law, which aims to restrain governmental and private actions that threaten the privacy of individuals.
  • It can range from being a Physical Privacy Theory, an Informational Privacy Theory, and a Decisional Privacy Theory.
  • It can be recognized as a basic human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and various international human rights treaties.
  • It can protects individuals from unwarranted intrusion into their personal lives by the state, organizations, or other individuals.
  • It can be closely linked to other rights such as Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Association, and Personal Autonomy.
  • It can become increasingly important in the digital age, with the proliferation of data collection and surveillance technologies.
  • ...
• Example(s):
  • A Home Privacy Theory, which protects the privacy of one's home and personal space.
  • Laws and regulations that govern the collection, use, and storage of personal data by governments and private companies, such as the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
  • The right to make decisions about one's own reproductive health, including access to contraception and abortion, as affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade (1973).
  • The right to marry and form intimate relationships without interference from the state, as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which legalized same-sex marriage.
  • ...
• Counter-Example(s):
  • Freedom of Speech Theory, which may conflict with privacy rights in some cases.
  • Freedom of Information, which may require public disclosure of information that would be considered private in other contexts.
  • Mass Surveillance Theory (mass surveillance), which involve the intrusion into personal privacy by state actors.
  • ...
• See: Privacy Law, Privacy Attack, Privacy Requirement, Privacy Model, Privacy-Preserving Data Mining Task, Individual and Group Rights, Privatus, Security, Bodily Integrity, Privacy, Mass Surveillance, Global Surveillance, Surveillance State.

---

---

References

2018

• (Wikipedia, 2018) ⇒ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/right_to_privacy Retrieved:2018-10-27.
  • The right to privacy is an element of various legal traditions to restrain governmental and private actions that threaten the privacy of individuals. Over 150 national constitutions mention the right to privacy.

    Since the global surveillance disclosures of 2013, initiated by ex-NSA employee Edward Snowden, the inalienable human right to privacy has been a subject of international debate. In combating worldwide terrorism, government agencies, such as the NSA, CIA, R&AW and GCHQ, have engaged in mass, global surveillance.

    There is now a question as whether the right to privacy act can co-exist with the current capabilities of intelligence agencies to access and analyse virtually in every detail of an individual's life. A major question is that whether or not the right to privacy needs to be forfeited as part of the social contract to bolster defense against supposed terrorist threats.

    Private sector actors could also threaten the right to privacy. Increasingly, questions have arisen about the use of personal data for targeted advertising, sharing data with external parties and reusing personal data within big data by large technology giants, such as Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Yahoo. These concerns have been strengthened by scandals, revealing that the psychographic company Cambridge Analytica was using personal data, illegitimately obtained through Facebook, to manipulate and influence large groups of people, including during the 2016 US Presidential elections.

2015a

• (Wikipedia, 2015) ⇒ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/privacy Retrieved:2015-8-10.
  • Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves, or information about themselves, and thereby express themselves selectively. The boundaries and content of what is considered private differ among cultures and individuals, but share common themes. When something is private to a person, it usually means that something is inherently special or sensitive to them. The domain of privacy partially overlaps security, which can include the concepts of appropriate use, as well as protection of information. Privacy may also take the form of bodily integrity.

    The right not to be subjected to unsanctioned invasion of privacy by the government, corporations or individuals is part of many countries' privacy laws, and in some cases, constitutions. Almost all countries have laws which in some way limit privacy. An example of this would be law concerning taxation, which normally require the sharing of information about personal income or earnings. In some countries individual privacy may conflict with freedom of speech laws and some laws may require public disclosure of information which would be considered private in other countries and cultures.

    Privacy may be voluntarily sacrificed, normally in exchange for perceived benefits and very often with specific dangers and losses, although this is a very strategic view of human relationships. Research shows that people are more willing to voluntarily sacrifice privacy if the data gatherer is seen to be transparent as to what information is gathered and how it is used. In the business world, a person may volunteer personal details (often for advertising purposes) in order to gamble on winning a prize. A person may also disclose personal information as part of being an executive for a publicly traded company in the USA pursuant to federal securities law. Personal information which is voluntarily shared but subsequently stolen or misused can lead to identity theft. The concept of universal individual privacy is a modern construct primarily associated with Western culture, British and North American in particular, and remained virtually unknown in some cultures until recent times. According to some researchers, this concept sets Anglo-American culture apart even from Western European cultures such as French or Italian. Most cultures, however, recognize the ability of individuals to withhold certain parts of their personal information from wider society— a figleaf over the genitals being an ancient example. The distinction or overlap between secrecy and privacy is ontologically subtle, which is why the word "privacy" is an example of an untranslatable lexeme, and many languages do not have a specific word for "privacy". Such languages either use a complex description to translate the term (such as Russian combining the meaning of уединение— solitude, секретность— secrecy, and частная жизнь—private life) or borrow from English "privacy" (as Indonesian Privasi or Italian la privacy). The distinction hinges on the discreteness of interests of parties (persons or groups), which can have emic variation depending on cultural mores of individualism, collectivism, and the negotiation between individual and group rights. The difference is sometimes expressed humorously as "when I withhold information, it is privacy; when you withhold information, it is secrecy."

1890

• (Warren & Brandeis, 1890) ⇒ Samuel D. Warren, and Louis Brandeis. (1890). “The Right to Privacy.” In: Harvard Law Review, 4.
  • NOTE:
    • It introduces the concept that the right to privacy has evolved alongside society, expanding from physical protections to include intangible aspects like emotions, reputation, and intellectual property.
    • It argues that recent technological and business advancements have necessitated further development of legal protections to preserve individual privacy against unwanted public exposure and appropriation of personal attributes.
    • It discusses the inadequacy of existing laws, which primarily address physical harm or property rights, to fully protect against invasions of privacy that cause mental distress and violate personal dignity.
    • It suggests that the right to privacy should be explicitly recognized and protected by law, to prevent the media and other entities from intruding into private lives and disseminating personal information without consent.
    • It emphasizes that privacy rights are not absolute but must be balanced against the public interest, drawing parallels with defamation laws to suggest potential limitations and remedies for privacy violations.
    • It proposes that the truth of the information disclosed or the absence of malice in its publication should not be defenses against a privacy violation, focusing on the right to control personal information.
    • It concludes by advocating for both legal and societal recognition of privacy rights, suggesting remedies such as tort actions for damages and injunctions to prevent further invasions, and hinting at the potential for criminal law protection.

---