Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

On a right to Privacy as a kind of Property.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I just found http://lasecwww.epfl.ch/keyboard/ on the web, which hopefully is a hoax, but I doubt it.

With this in mind, who here thinks we need to fundamentally solidify Privacy as a right that is as foundational as Property? It's not about the right for others not to know. If you're stupid enough to tell someone your password then they do. It's about the right of yourself to be secure from people TAKING information from you. I use taking in the same sense as intellectual property theft. If they did not EARN it from you, then they have no right to it.

I get up in arms over a lot of things but seriously, the Supreme Court Of The United States needs to start doing its job and interpreting the constitution in favor of privacy!

If it doesn't I may consider moving to Canada. At least there I can pretend this is some sort of corporate conspiracy and they'll listen just for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a piece of information is obtained ilegally, or it was obtained to help step on your freedom or property, then it should be a problem, and I think it is, in the US. (In the second ase the peopl obtaining the information are accomplices to the later crime)

However, I think privacy laws go far beyond that, to where your face has to be blurred if you are filmed in public, you can't be shown on TV if you give an interview but don't sign a waver, etc. I think that if anything, privacy laws go too far. The job of the government is to protect your freedom and property, not information about your whereabouts, the way you look or the fact that you don't have anything intelligent to say when asked a question in a public place.

As long as there are property laws, anything that's on private property should be protected by them.(including magnified photos, or even the view of your bedroom with the aid of a telescope, and many others:phonelines, computers etc.)--and all these are protected by current privacy laws. What you decide to bring out into a public space, or leave out in the open to be easily seen from a public space, however, should be shown on TV without the fear of a lawsuit. Why would something the lady at the supermarket can see not bee seen on Google Earth Street View for example-wich is what a lot of people are trying to shut down, and succeeding partially. The photos are intentionally blurred, to not show the faces clearly, in many places.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a piece of information is obtained ilegally, or it was obtained to help step on your freedom or property, then it should be a problem, and I think it is, in the US. (In the second ase the peopl obtaining the information are accomplices to the later crime)

However, I think privacy laws go far beyond that, to where your face has to be blurred if you are filmed in public, you can't be shown on TV if you give an interview but don't sign a waver, etc. I think that if anything, privacy laws go too far. The job of the government is to protect your freedom and property, not information about your whereabouts, the way you look or the fact that you don't have anything intelligent to say when asked a question in a public place.

As long as there are property laws, anything that's on private property should be protected by them.(including magnified photos, or even the view of your bedroom with the aid of a telescope, and many others:phonelines, computers etc.)--and all these are protected by current privacy laws. What you decide to bring out into a public space, or leave out in the open to be easily seen from a public space, however, should be shown on TV without the fear of a lawsuit. Why would something the lady at the supermarket can see not bee seen on Google Earth Street View for example-wich is what a lot of people are trying to shut down, and succeeding partially. The photos are intentionally blurred, to not show the faces clearly, in many places.

You've made an excellent point. But what about situation with multiple agents of action?

For instance, you are driving on a privately owned road. Who owns the right to see what's on your dashboard? While I admit, picking up information like that and having someone cry foul is like someone picking up a small pebble from your front lawn and you sue them for stealing property. In fact it's quite analogous.

There needs to be objective guidelines for determining what a person's interests are in privacy, how far it goes, and what a person should have to do to demonstrate that they are indeed holding their privacy as a right. I mean, if the Indians didn't have property rights because they didn't know they had them, what can be said of privacy rights?

I think, what you said applies definitely. Though I do think that people have a right to be able to move out and about without fear of their likeness being used, there are plenty ways to do this legally so that a person would have to use force to get your face.

Link to post
Share on other sites
With this in mind, who here thinks we need to fundamentally solidify Privacy as a right that is as foundational as Property?
Me. The so-called right to privacy is at best derivative from the right to the right to property (thus it is not fundamental, it is derivative), and at worse it is highly subjective. You can't even objectively define the general "right to privacy". The proximal cause of your outrage should suggest to an entrepreneur with smarts in electronics a business opportunity.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If it doesn't I may consider moving to Canada. At least there I can pretend this is some sort of corporate conspiracy and they'll listen just for that.

So you would give up property rights in favour of being able to spout conspiracy theories with impunity? :lol: You are angry. ;)

Seriously though. With regard to the article all electronic devices emit electromagnetic signatures which can, if the person has sensitive enough equipment be read. Never mind your keyboard, your CPU can be compromised this way. That is why sensitive government computer systems are often located inside a lead "shield" and classified systems are separated from unclassified ones.

I think property rights are the way to protect your privacy, but certain things we do compromise our privacy. Were you to build a house with no windows, or with one way glass you could logically expect to have complete privacy within your house, but as long as you build with windows then you voluntarily give up some privacy to enjoy sunlight inside your home. The real trick is the determination of what constitutes a violation of your privacy.

I think we can all agree that electronic spying would be a violation of privacy in as much as the information was never intended to be public in any way shape or form.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The right to privacy is based upon property rights, and the fact that you have the right to associate with whom you want and not associate with whom you don't want. Whether one has a reasonable expectation of privacy if one is broadcasting information -- i.e. keyboard emanations, cell phones, portable home phones, walkie-talkies, or other such devices -- I think is based upon the fact that one is trying to connect to a specific person or forum, and not to the world at large (just anybody listening in). In fact, it is my understanding that it is already illegal to tap into cell phone conversations in most states, though I'm not sure of that. As technology improves, I've heard that they will be able to tell everything you are doing behind closed doors, so this is definitely an issue.

I guess it becomes more problematic if you are talking outside, where a good microphone might be able to pick up every word, but I would say that if you are talking to a specific person next to you, then it is a private conversation, even if someone yards away could pick up on it.

I once had my computer broken into, or unknowingly gave them permission by either downloading a program or getting a virus that had a key logger on it, and I can tell you from personal experience that someone violating your privacy is very unnerving. I started to get emails about what I was writing, and I thought they were strange replies to emails I sent, but after a more careful determination, found that anytime I was connected to the Internet, they knew everything that I was typing. I got very angry at this and began to make references to stories whereby the bad guys got it in the end -- on a text page from my desk top -- and they thought I was threatening them, and then stalked and harassed me to the point of nearly driving me insane for quite some time. If I ever find them, I will definitely prosecute them to the fullest extent I can, because I basically locked up mentally and couldn't function, wondering if they were getting my passwords and other private material.

I'm reminded of something Miss Rand said about civilization as a movement towards privacy, and that savages consider everything to be an aspect of the tribe and therefore there is no privacy.

Part of my problem, however, was when I went to the local police, they couldn't do much about it, and even told me that if I am not doing anything immoral then don't worry about it! So, in the future, are we all going to have to get our own technologically advanced personal privacy shields and put them up whenever we want privacy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The right to privacy is based upon property rights, and the fact that you have the right to associate with whom you want and not associate with whom you don't want. Whether one has a reasonable expectation of privacy if one is broadcasting information -- i.e. keyboard emanations, cell phones, portable home phones, walkie-talkies, or other such devices -- I think is based upon the fact that one is trying to connect to a specific person or forum, and not to the world at large (just anybody listening in). In fact, it is my understanding that it is already illegal to tap into cell phone conversations in most states, though I'm not sure of that. As technology improves, I've heard that they will be able to tell everything you are doing behind closed doors, so this is definitely an issue.

I guess it becomes more problematic if you are talking outside, where a good microphone might be able to pick up every word, but I would say that if you are talking to a specific person next to you, then it is a private conversation, even if someone yards away could pick up on it.

I once had my computer broken into, or unknowingly gave them permission by either downloading a program or getting a virus that had a key logger on it, and I can tell you from personal experience that someone violating your privacy is very unnerving. I started to get emails about what I was writing, and I thought they were strange replies to emails I sent, but after a more careful determination, found that anytime I was connected to the Internet, they knew everything that I was typing. I got very angry at this and began to make references to stories whereby the bad guys got it in the end -- on a text page from my desk top -- and they thought I was threatening them, and then stalked and harassed me to the point of nearly driving me insane for quite some time. If I ever find them, I will definitely prosecute them to the fullest extent I can, because I basically locked up mentally and couldn't function, wondering if they were getting my passwords and other private material.

I'm reminded of something Miss Rand said about civilization as a movement towards privacy, and that savages consider everything to be an aspect of the tribe and therefore there is no privacy.

Part of my problem, however, was when I went to the local police, they couldn't do much about it, and even told me that if I am not doing anything immoral then don't worry about it! So, in the future, are we all going to have to get our own technologically advanced personal privacy shields and put them up whenever we want privacy?

I remember that happening to me. A not so good friend offered to clean up my computer and that's when all of this started.

Are these people TRYING to make other people schizophrenic or something? By taking away all privacy they're doing what Hitler (through his concentration camps) and the CIA (through their LSD method of attempted mind control) never could.

It's unfortunate that privacy only seems to count if you are a company with information with objective worth well over thousands of dollars. It seems like a violation of the 14th amendment to me, in the same way that laws against discrimination against old people but not young people is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just back up your important documents and reformat your computer...

I did that eventually, but the damage was already done. It is quite possible that over time they could have downloaded my hard drive, but I don't know.

Complicating my issue, was the fact that at one point I was asked if I could be monitored when I communicated with a woman I thought I loved. Thinking she wanted a chaperon, I agreed, and then a whole bunch of spying and harassments began to happen to me, including to my computer. So, not only did they spy on me, stalked me, and harassed me, they prevented me from communicating with that loved one with all of their clandestine emails and other things they did to thoroughly confuse me. Like Turing A said, one has to conclude that these types of people are deliberately trying to cause mental problems in people they do this too. It sure confused the hell out of me.

These days, I am very careful what I download and put on my computer, and have my firewall setting and virus settings on high. And I'm not going to wait so long to take the appropriate action against them next time around; though I've heard that anonymous email is almost impossible to trace, and unless I put up cameras all outside my apartment, I'm not going to catch them yelling at me in the middle of the night, either.

Guess I'm going to have to get one of those personal shields :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
And I'm not going to wait so long to take the appropriate action against them next time around; though I've heard that anonymous email is almost impossible to trace, and unless I put up cameras all outside my apartment, I'm not going to catch them yelling at me in the middle of the night, either.

Someone yelled again at me last night, evidently in relation to this and other posts. His and their actions of confronting a sleeping man are those of cowards unwilling to identify themselves and making sneak attacks that amount to disturbing the peace, stalking, and harassments. I think the law and morality are on my side, so identify yourselves so I can send you to jail. There are local ordinances against you and Federal laws against you, if you are connected to those people who harassed and stalked me over a three-state area. They also kept saying they wanted me to pull over to sign some paperwork that they wouldn't identify (that might be attempted fraud) and kept telling me that I can either deal with them or deal with the police (which is extortion); so there are Federal charges that can be brought against you.

If I have a misunderstanding of the situation, you can clarify your position by contacting me via intelligible email at: [email protected] But don't send me unintelligible anonymous emails, as you have been doing, because I am keeping those and will use them against you as harassments once I find out who you are. If you are morally and legally in the clear, then state openly who you are and what your intent is; otherwise, I have to consider it to be enemy action, and I will act appropriately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a current example of what some people in the media might describe as an invasion of privacy, but is in fact more of an abuse of power on behalf of people in government:

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local...oe.html?sid=101

The main point of the article is that someone (in local government) accessed the DMV records of "Joe the Plumber" guy who asked Obama that tax-related question last week. The McCain campaign labeled the incident an "abuse of power", while the Obama campaign are calling it "invasion of privacy", thus lumping it in with everything else they call invasion of privacy.

I would argue that our rights are broken the minute private information we submit to the government, to receive a driver's license, is used for other purposes: for instance made available across a network, to police, children's protection agencies, etc.

Making this info so easily available to so many people in government is obviously more than would be needed for the police to protect the public. Sure, if we have public roads, we need to have licenses for those who drive on them, and cops need access to those licenses. The problem is all the activities government is involved with, that have nothing to do with law-enforcement, wich are connected to the same databases law-enforcement is legitimately connected to. If by "invasion of privacy" you (the author of this topic) are refering to abuses commited by government workers who should never have access to this type of info in the first place, I absolutely agree with you: the government should not be used to spy on people, unless there is a legitimate national security or law-enforcement related motivation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a current example of what some people in the media might describe as an invasion of privacy, but is in fact more of an abuse of power on behalf of people in government:

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local...oe.html?sid=101

The main point of the article is that someone (in local government) accessed the DMV records of "Joe the Plumber" guy who asked Obama that tax-related question last week. The McCain campaign labeled the incident an "abuse of power", while the Obama campaign are calling it "invasion of privacy", thus lumping it in with everything else they call invasion of privacy.

I agree with you up to this point.

I would argue that our rights are broken the minute private information we submit to the government, to receive a driver's license, is used for other purposes: for instance made available across a network, to police, children's protection agencies, etc.

I agree about children's protection agencies (which I believe would be privately run in a free society) but I disagree about the police. Any such information accessed and used in the completion of the duties of policing and protecting the rights of all citizens should be able to be accessed for that purpose.

<snip>Sure, if we have public roads, we need to have licenses for those who drive on them, and cops need access to those licenses.

Would the police need to patrol privately owned roads? Would the road companies permit it? I would think that the road companies would patrol and enforce their own regulations.

The problem is all the activities government is involved with, that have nothing to do with law-enforcement, wich are connected to the same databases law-enforcement is legitimately connected to. If by "invasion of privacy" you (the author of this topic) are refering to abuses commited by government workers who should never have access to this type of info in the first place, I absolutely agree with you: the government should not be used to spy on people, unless there is a legitimate national security or law-enforcement related motivation.

Right, I agree that office clerk Suzie Que should not have access to anything not pertaining to her job, but as I said the Police, upon establishing a valid need (some sort of oversight would be needed there too) should be able to gather all the pertinent governmentally held information on you. They should also still have the opportunity to get warrants for information from public companies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Turing AI and myself are not only talking about government action, which I agree must be based upon individual rights violations only, but also the fact that one's conversations and one's computers and one's cell phone etc. can be violated by snoops. And then they can use that information against you to manipulate you, as people were doing to me. It become quite unnerving to have someone write to you about what you are doing privately, such as keeping a private journal or writing on one's computer and not sending it to anyone. There is such a law as illegal accessing a computer, but I think that only kicks in if they change things on your computer (like corrupting data). Palin's computer was accessed illegally recently when someone scammed her ISP into revealing her passwords, and that should be illegal, but local police departments won't take much action on something like this unless you are in the government or threats are being relayed to one.

I've also seen on YouTube spy cameras being set up and that information being relayed to the public, which should definitely be illegal; and I don't buy the idea that if you don't close your curtains all the way and someone sees you, then you are inviting them into your bedroom or your bathroom. Likewise, not having a lock on one's door or not having protective software on one's computer is not an invitation to enter the premises. I love the Internet, but the ability to be anonymous on it leads some people to think they can get away with anything. I'm not saying get rid of the anonymity, as some people are more confident expressing their views without revealing who they are, but privacy based upon property and access ought to be enforced. I think it is enforced if threats or other violent actions are taken by the spooks, but not if they are just spying. At least that is my understanding. My local police told me they do not have the equipment to run a trace on anonymous Internet activity, and that the FBI wouldn't get involved unless I was in the government.

So, my advise is to protect your privacy by protecting your property.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...