The "Right to Privacy"

[y_feldblum]

It is not a right of its own. It is a right insofar as, by use of your property, you have ensured your privacy. If violation of privacy is done by means of violation of the right to property, then it is violation of a right; otherwise, it is not a violation of anything more than a whim.

[Joynewyeary]

In the context of a capitalist society, this would only be possible if the individual property owners allowed it.  Presumably, allowing stalking on your property is not a good business strategy. 

What guarantee is there that a typical customer's desire for privacy will have a controlling influence on business policy?

Also, what about private property that is not operated as a business? For example, suppose that a child's parents allow photographers to stalk the child on the parents' property. Would that be okay?

More fundamentally, what can you say about the actual issue of privacy? In a country where 99% of the people consider it important to stop and pray at specific times every day, one would expect businesses to cater to that custom. Do you think that the concept of privacy is nothing more than the remnant of an ancient superstition?

The exception would be people who spend much of their time on public property such as police officers, soldiers, and politicians who are either capable of taking care of themselves or deserving of the scrutiny.

Do you really believe that the mere fact that you could think of some examples ("police officers, soldiers, and politicians") that are consistent with your claim is evidence in favor of your claim? Don't you think that it might be a good idea to put some effort into looking for examples that conflict with your claim?

[Eric Mathis]

What guarantee is there that a typical customer's desire for privacy will have a controlling influence on business policy?

None. But businesses do not stay in business by offending significant numbers of customers. Success in capitalism is built on achieving consumer satisfaction.

Also, what about private property that is not operated as a business?  For example, suppose that a child's parents allow photographers to stalk the child on the parents' property.  Would that be okay?

My parents allowed my goofy uncle to film me and my siblings without mercy – although we were never unclothed. I don’t consider them bad parents for that. Do you?

More fundamentally, what can you say about the actual issue of privacy?  In a country where 99% of the people consider it important to stop and pray at specific times every day, one would expect businesses to cater to that custom.

In countries where people have to urinate and defecate, businesses cater to them by providing restrooms. Is there a problem?

[Joynewyeary]

But businesses do not stay in business by offending significant numbers of customers. 

What is the relevance of that statement? Is the contentment of significant numbers of customers more important than the rights of the individual customer?

My parents allowed my goofy uncle to film me and my siblings without mercy – although we were never unclothed.  I don’t consider them bad parents for that. Do you?

You should really be asking your siblings, not me.

In countries where people have to urinate and defecate, businesses cater to them by providing restrooms.  Is there a problem?

Go back and re-read my question and re-read what I was responding to when I asked the question.

[Eric Mathis]

What is the relevance of that statement?  Is the contentment of significant numbers of customers more important than the rights of the individual customer?

There is no conflict between the operation of the free market and individual rights. 1) The marketplace rewards with increased sales those businesses that satisfy consumer demand. 2) Under capitalism, the law protects customers who are defrauded or injured by a business.

Go back and re-read my question and re-read what I was responding to when I asked the question.

Joynewyeary: In a country where 99% of the people consider it important to stop and pray at specific times every day, one would expect businesses to cater to that custom. Do you think that the concept of privacy is nothing more than the remnant of an ancient superstition?

My response to your first sentence: yes. My response to the second sentence: no.

[Joynewyeary]

There is no conflict between the operation of the free market and individual rights.  1)  The marketplace rewards with increased sales those businesses that satisfy consumer demand. 2) Under capitalism, the law protects customers who are defrauded or injured by a business. 

Given that someone considers his or her privacy to have been violated, how does one determine whether or not the person was "injured"?

[Eric Mathis]

Given that someone considers his or her privacy to have been violated, how does one determine whether or not the person was "injured"?

First of all, under a system of objective laws, there must be a clear understanding of what constitutes a rights violation. My claim to be injured is not a valid one unless it conforms to what is legally codified. Under capitalism, it is the rights to person and property that are protected. For example, I have a right not to have cameras planted in my home or bugs tapped into my phone line -- for those are clearly violations of property rights (trespass). On the other hand, I do not have the right to prevent people from gossiping about me -- no matter how much I feel injured. My property rights do not extend to the conversations of others.

[Joynewyeary]

For example, I have a right not to have cameras planted in my home or bugs tapped into my phone line -- for those are clearly violations of property rights (trespass). 

What if someone gives you a gift that contains a concealed camera and that transmits video?

[Groovenstein]

What if someone gives you a gift that contains a concealed camera and that transmits video?

Trespass. Whenever consent is involved in answering a question, as in cases of trespass, its scope must be considered. Where in that do you see express or implied consent? What if the gift contained a noxious gas? Do you think I've consented to being accosted by noxious gas merely by receiving the gift?

[Joynewyeary]

What if the gift contained a noxious gas?  Do you think I've consented to being accosted by noxious gas merely by receiving the gift?

Are you comparing something that causes a loss of privacy to something that causes direct harm? If you are doing that, then aren't you presupposing that there is something special about privacy?

Suppose I give a kind of gift that normally contains nothing made from animals. So the recipient doesn't see a need to tell me that he or she is a vegan. However, that particular gift is made from animals and I know that it is, but I don't know that the recipient is a vegan. Have I violated the recipient's rights?

[Groovenstein]

Are you comparing something that causes a loss of privacy to something that causes direct harm?  If you are doing that, then aren't you presupposing that there is something special about privacy?

I'll grant that I'm uncertain on this, so I might be wrong, but it seems to me that the harm is equivalent in each case: violation of a right (bodily in one case, property in the other) without permission to something for which a reasonable person would require permission.

Suppose I give a kind of gift that normally contains nothing made from animals.  So the recipient doesn't see a need to tell me that he or she is a vegan.  However, that particular gift is made from animals and I know that it is, but I don't know that the recipient is a vegan.  Have I violated the recipient's rights?

Can you think of an example of such a thing? Proper context is helpful. Without having any more facts, I will briefly describe the guiding principles.

If you neither know nor have reason to know that the recipient has specific dietary criteria, I think the question hinges on what it is reasonable for you and the recipient to assume.

For you, that depends on things like what you know or should know about the eating habits of your community, to what extent you know or should know the potential dangers involved, and what you know or should know about how "normally" the product isn't made from animals.

For them, it depends on similar things. Though instead of what you know or should know about community eating habits, I would add what they know or should know about what you know about their eating habits.

[Groovenstein]

I will add what I think is a crucial distinction between the person in your house taking pictures and the person on the street taking pictures.

The person in your house is in your house only by permission. Therefore we are determining what the appropriate standards are for behavior of someone on your property by permission. The person not on your property doesn't need your permission to be not on your property.

[Eric Mathis]

What if someone gives you a gift that contains a concealed camera and that transmits video?

I would call that trespass, in the same sense that Greeks concealed in a gift horse were trespassing into Troy.

[Michero]

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. Specifically in reference to celebs and the stalking paparazzi. Isn't it a violation of property rights (if you consider your own body, your property) to use one's name or image to sell things like newspapers? Girls who are in those "girls gone wild" videos have to sign contracts so that they can be used in the video tapes, so why is it different for actors/directors etc?

[DavidOdden]

Isn't it a violation of property rights (if you consider your own body, your property) to use one's name or image to sell things like newspapers?  Girls who are in those "girls gone wild" videos have to sign contracts so that they can be used in the video tapes, so why is it different for actors/directors etc?

You're talking about a law thing, not a rights thing. With voluntary naked girls, the movie producer simply wants to be sure the girl won't complain later in court. Famous people are "public people" who have voluntarily given up a certain right to privacy (since in fact they seek publicity). Defamation law is different for public figures, as well. It's not that public figures don't have any right to privacy (hence Catherine Zeta-Jones and the old man she married were able to sue a mag for invasion of privacy), just they they don't have the same right.

If you start from the premise (which I don't dispute, at least right now) that a person has the right to privacy and that their name and image are their property, then they have the right to demand a usage fee from anyone using their property, or they can even deny someone else the right to use the name or image; at the very least, you have an obligation to get permission. Celebs often grant implicit permission to publicize their names and images, because in fact that is what makes them celebrities and what makes their careers possible. So the problem is that it's difficult to withdraw implicit permission: it's much easier to not grant it in the first place.

[Michero]

Celebs often grant implicit permission to publicize their names and images, because in fact that is what makes them celebrities and what makes their careers possible.

Is that true? I mean. if we are talking about actors who have talent and not Paris Hilton types who are simply famous for being famous. What about actors who are good and that's the reason they are hired for movie work? They didn't exactly choose to be famous--nobody can ever guarantee that a movie will be popular. Obviously actors in movies grant the production company permission to use their image to promote the movie. But I don't see how an actor himself needs publicity and thus grants the paparazzi the right to use his image. The movie, the actor's product needs advertising of course, but not the actor himself. A person who cuts hair and advertises on TV or in magazines, they also depend on publicity in a way right? So does that mean magazines can start printing pictures of the hairdresser when she goes out dancing?

[DavidOdden]

Is that true?  I mean. if we are talking about actors who have talent and not Paris Hilton types who are simply famous for being famous.

No names come to mind at the moment, but for the sake of argument let's assume there is such a person. What they simply need to establish from the very start is that they do not ever grant automatic permission to publically mention their name or show their picture; and, they need to aggressively pursue all people who take and show your picture without written permission and not knowingly ignore such violations. If you start granting implicit permission by ignoring unpermitted publication, then it's really hard to tell which uses are implicitly permitted. The issue is not that a need for publicity limits your right to privacy, it's that your behavior does, namely by granting implicit permission, you abandon privacy claims, to some extent (that extent to be determined in a court of law).

[derEikopf]

I noticed that many people use the "right to [insert noun here]" such as "the right to property" or the "right to privacy". As Peikoff pointed out in O:PAR, rights only pertain to actions, not actual objects. There is the right to own one's property, the right to exist, the right to live, the right to pursue happiness, etc. But there is no right to happiness, or a right to money, or a right to property. Creating rights to objects is a sure-fire way to destroy a society.

As for the "right to privacy"...I don't think it even applies to Objectivism. If you want something private, you make it private. Nobody would have the right to initiate force to find the truth. If somebody can find the truth without initiating force, then that's perfectly moral. Once again, there are no rights to objects, including privacy. If you had a "right to privacy", then you would be permitted to lie about anything in order to retain your privacy, because it would be a right.

[tnunamak]

Do people have rights to information about their lives?

For example, say John joins an organization, but he doesn't want people to know about it. Somehow, his friend Steve finds out. If John tells Steve to keep it private, would it be immoral for Steve to go around telling everyone about it? Does John have inherent rights to information about himself, excluding the possibility that other people share in the information (for example if Steve had been there and thus it became about him as well)? I started thinking about this and couldn't really come to a conclusion either way... maybe you guys can.

[softwareNerd]

You ask about morality, but also speak about rights. There may be cases where it is immoral to reveal something though one has a legal right to do so. Was the information obtained in some devious way?

Also, what organization is this? Did John join the Al Quaeda?

[Captain Nate]

No, they don't. You cannot impose restrictions on the free actions of individuals and claim it is by right. Once information is out there -- it's out there. If someone violates a confidentiality contract, you can sue them. But I can't force someone to keep a secret just because I don't want someone else to know.

You do, however, have the right to be shielded from government intrusions in your private business. At least I think so.

[tnunamak]

You ask about morality, but also speak about rights. There may be cases where it is immoral to reveal something though one has a legal right to do so. Was the information obtained in some devious way?

Also, what organization is this? Did John join the Al Quaeda?

Sorry, I should have specified that I am asking in the context of moral rights, not legal rights. Say the organization is one where nothing would be at risk except for John's reputation.

No, they don't. You cannot impose restrictions on the free actions of individuals and claim it is by right.

This is what I have a little trouble accepting without clarification. Everyone has the right to life, correct? So if you try to take someone's life, they can impose restrictions on you from doing so and claim it is by their right to live. Does the same rule not apply in this case?

[DavidOdden]

John has the right to keep the fact of joining that cult private, if he can manage; Steve has the right to tell, if he finds out. Except: if Steve found out about the information under certain circumstances. For example, if Steve is John's lawyer and in connection with the attorney-client relation he learns this fact, then he does not have the right to disclose the fact. (That's the short version: it basically comes down to whether he has a business obligation to hold his chin). In addition, if Steve and John have some kind of close relationship and there is a clear implication that secrets told within the confines of the relationship are to be respected, then it would be immoral of Steve to reveal that secret (unless, of course, Steve was repudiating the relationship and was telling the world some disgusting fact about John), though he has the legal right to do so. The third situation is where Steve and John don't necessarily have a pre-existing relation, and Steve reveals some "access" fact which facilitates violation of his rights -- e.g. a password or credit card number. He has no right to reveal the credit card number; passwords can probably be subsumed under the same property right principle that protects credit card numbers. But that right is relevant only to a restricted type of information.

[tnunamak]

John has the right to keep the fact of joining that cult private, if he can manage; Steve has the right to tell, if he finds out. Except: if Steve found out about the information under certain circumstances. For example, if Steve is John's lawyer and in connection with the attorney-client relation he learns this fact, then he does not have the right to disclose the fact. (That's the short version: it basically comes down to whether he has a business obligation to hold his chin). In addition, if Steve and John have some kind of close relationship and there is a clear implication that secrets told within the confines of the relationship are to be respected, then it would be immoral of Steve to reveal that secret (unless, of course, Steve was repudiating the relationship and was telling the world some disgusting fact about John), though he has the legal right to do so. The third situation is where Steve and John don't necessarily have a pre-existing relation, and Steve reveals some "access" fact which facilitates violation of his rights -- e.g. a password or credit card number. He has no right to reveal the credit card number; passwords can probably be subsumed under the same property right principle that protects credit card numbers. But that right is relevant only to a restricted type of information.

Ok thanks David that's exactly the answer I was looking for.

[Apollo]

Do people have rights to information about their lives?

For example, say John joins an organization, but he doesn't want people to know about it. Somehow, his friend Steve finds out. If John tells Steve to keep it private, would it be immoral for Steve to go around telling everyone about it? Does John have inherent rights to information about himself, excluding the possibility that other people share in the information (for example if Steve had been there and thus it became about him as well)? I started thinking about this and couldn't really come to a conclusion either way... maybe you guys can.

The key words here are "John tells Steve to keep it private." There is no contract signed but, because it is stated that they are friends, Steve may be (if the secret is not dangerouse or harmful) admiting his lack of integrity (In that he professes to be John's friend but acts in a way a friend would not) but not neccisarily morality. His action of finding out the secret in the first place, however, could very well have involved some immorality:

If it was John's intent to keep it secret and Steve found out, Steve must have had to trespassed, hear of it through somebody who broke a secrecy contract, or some other attrocity, or else John had done nothing to keep it secret. It is John's right to keep something secret (unless used for fraud) if he takes the steps to do so. Assuming he did take those steps, somewhere along the line John's right's were harmed (but not neccisarily by Steve.)