The "Right to Privacy"

[BIGBANGSingh]

What is meant by the "right to privacy?" Is it a valid right? Why or why not?

[DavidV]

I think the term “right to privacy” as it’s used by most people today is an invalid concept. The term is usually used to advocate that either government or private entities not be allowed to know some bit of information about you. Properly defined, a “right” identifies your freedom from other’s use of force, but “a right to privacy” implies a “right” to force others not to use, disseminate, or store information about you.

Since the mere act of knowing or using information about someone does not constitute the use of force against them, there can be no right to force them not to use it. The only time someone can justly be held liable for using your personal information is when they violate your property rights in the act of obtaining it.

In the context of government, there can be no “right” to be free from criminal investigation either. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to (a) ensure that the police abide by objective laws, not arbitrary whim and ( to explicitly define some of the rights the government cannot violate. It does not say that the government cannot use or collect particular information about you, and there is no basis for limiting the information it can use to fight crime and terrorism.

Having said that, I will be the first to argue that the government should not collect information about any citizens not suspect of criminal activity, but only as a practical barrier against police (and more importantly, political) abuse, not any kind of “right” to privacy.

[NIJamesHughes]

is it right for a goverment to video tape its citizens?

I know that in a purely capitalist society there wouldn't even be this question, because all property would be private, BUT..

as it stands today is there anything immoral about government video taping?

[RadCap]

As it stands, this is an invalid question. It drops one small thing: CONTEXT.

Imagine someone asking this question: Is there anything immoral about a government using force?

Could you answer the question as it stands? No. Why? because it does not contain pertinant info. The same is true of your question.

Try being more specific.

[NIJamesHughes]

What I meant was police cameras, such as on stop lights and in public places.

[y_feldblum]

The answer to the question is it is wrong, if it is not in response to the initiation of force.

[RadCap]

y

Given the context of his last post, your answer is incorrect. No force is being initiated at intersections or other so-called 'public' places - ie parks, etc. Unless you are suggesting it is wrong for say a policeman to 'walk the beat' then there is also no problem in placing cameras along that beat either.

[y_feldblum]

RadCap,

You're right, of course. But ...

Given that there are many public schools (ie government schools), and that government initiates force in demanding that everybody between certain ages attend, and that the evil is already there - it is not right that the principle forbids fighting in the halls and installs hall monitors, but it would be even more wrong if he did not.

[RadCap]

AR already addressed this argument when talking about roads and speed limits.

[y_feldblum]

I admit, I haven't seen it, or the vast majority of AR's or Objectivist writings. (Where I am in my remote location I have little enough access to English books - or bookstores in general. In a few months I will be back in America though.)

So ... how does she address my argument?

[NIJamesHughes]

I would also like to hear what Miss Rand has to say about roads and speed limits; if you don't mind sharing.

[poohat]

y

Given the context of his last post, your answer is incorrect.  No force is being initiated at intersections or other so-called 'public' places - ie parks, etc.  Unless you are suggesting it is wrong for say a policeman to 'walk the beat' then there is also no problem in placing cameras along that beat either.

So can I put a camera up there too if I want?

[Myself]

AR describes a "right" as "a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context." She goies on to say that a man's rights derive from a fundamental "right to life" (The Virtue of Selfishness, "Man's Rights"). Through this man can act as he sees fit, as long as his actions do not violate the rights of another.

AR mentions false "rights": those that presuppose the unearned and those that violate the rights of another. My question can be broken into a moral and in this case political dillema: Is privacy derived from the "right to life"? If one were to violate this "right" (without initiating physical force) is this immoral?

As a corollary to this: Is force limited to the physical, or does it extend to the psychological (how would that be defined?)

PS. This post has digressed (unintentionally) into several different, but related questions. It could be that one is built on the other, or not. Any comments, suggestions would be helpful.

[EC]

Yes, there is a right to privacy and yes it is moral to lie to keep it private if answering otherwise, such as "that's none of your business" could be construed as an implicit yes. This in not just my position, but also Leonard Piekoffs from OPAR.

[softwareNerd]

I remember some Objectivist speech or interview where the following point was made: while one has the right to keep certain things private, that is part of the right to property. The speaker indicated that the "right to privacy" as it was being defined in contemporary law was not valid.

Does this ring a bell with anyone? I think it might have been an interview that Amy Peikoff gave on one of Leonard Peikoff's radio shows. If someone remembers, I'd appreciate a reference.

[Tom Robinson]

There is no "right to privacy" apart from the right to protect one's property from physical attack. If you leave your curtains open, I have the right to tell the world whom you kissed last night. Doing does does not initiate force against anyone.

[JMeganSnow]

It might help you here if you define what privacy is. Thus far you seem to have differing views on what constitutes privacy. A concrete is "private" if it is unknown to or protected from some individuals, correct?

The right to privacy, then, would logically be an extension of the right to property; it is an aspect of disposing of one's property. It is a broad abstraction that applies to anything that constitutes property, though, and since different types of property are different, it is applied in different fashions.

If one applies it to, say, one's naked body, it means that one is free from being forced to, say, display it to an unchosen individual (say, someone hiding cameras in your home), however, if one leaves open the possibility of someone on their OWN property viewing it accidentally, that's your own problem.

It also protects you from being forced to, say, disclose your ideas, practices, beliefs, etc.

[Joynewyeary]

If you leave your curtains open, I have the right to tell the world whom you kissed last night. 

Isn't leaving one's curtains open a kind of negligence? Are you merely trying to demonstrate that it is okay for a negligent individual to suffer the consequences of the negligence or are you actually trying to demonstrate that there is no right to privacy? "Whom you kissed last night" doesn't sound like information that would be particularly damaging.

How about these possibilities:

(1) Suppose I am rich and I hate a particular person, but that person doesn't know that. I invite the person to my home for a discussion about The Satanic Verses. Hidden cameras record the person praising the book. I find television programs that have large Muslim audiences. I pay for the recording to be broadcast again and again and again during those programs.

(2) Suppose I develop window coverings that are opaque for visible light, but completely transparent for a whole range of frequences invisible to the human eye. I keep this fact a secret. I get a contract to install them in a hotel or apartment building that has lots of windows. I rent a location across the street and for several years, using a camera that records frequencies not visible to the human eye, I film people having sex. I sell the films as pornography.

(3) I build miniature remote-controlled blimps that contain remote-controlled telescopic cameras that transmit visual information to me. The blimps are designed to look like floating advertisements for soda pop. I fly the blimps near restaurants that have windows with no window coverings. I record names and credit card numbers and I sell the information to criminal organizations.

[Hal]

There is no "right to privacy" apart from the right to protect one's property from physical attack.  If you leave your curtains open, I have the right to tell the world whom you kissed last night.  Doing does does not initiate force against anyone.

So if someone were to stalk you, following you wherever you went while taking photos and so on, you wouldnt think that you either had a right to take action against him or demand the government did so on your behalf?

This isnt an absurd scenario either, it's what a fair amount of people go through with the paparazzi every day.

[DavidV]

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. 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.

[Tom Robinson]

Isn't leaving one's curtains open a kind of negligence?  Are you merely trying to demonstrate that it is okay for a negligent individual to suffer the consequences of the negligence or are you actually trying to demonstrate that there is no right to privacy?

I cannot think of a reason why anyone shouldn’t suffer the consequence of their actions.

"Whom you kissed last night" doesn't sound like information that would be particularly damaging.

It could be if the person kissed was not your spouse.

(1) Suppose I am rich and I hate a particular person, but that person doesn't know that.  I invite the person to my home for a discussion about The Satanic Verses.  Hidden cameras record the person praising the book.  I find television programs that have large Muslim audiences.  I pay for the recording to be broadcast again and again and again during those programs.

If the person recorded was not given any assurances that his voice would not be recorded, he has no case against the surreptitious recordist.

(2) Suppose I develop window coverings that are opaque for visible light, but completely transparent for a whole range of frequences invisible to the human eye.  I keep this fact a secret.  I get a contract to install them in a hotel or apartment building that has lots of windows.  I rent a location across the street and for several years, using a camera that records frequencies not visible to the human eye, I film people having sex.  I sell the films as pornography.

Stay only in hotels that offer a guarantee of privacy. If someone gets videos of your naughty activities, you have a case against the hotel.

(3) I build miniature remote-controlled blimps that contain remote-controlled telescopic cameras that transmit visual information to me.  The blimps are designed to look like floating advertisements for soda pop.  I fly the blimps near restaurants that have windows with no window coverings.  I record names and credit card numbers and I sell the information to criminal organizations.

Not a rights violation, unless the recorder of restaurants himself engages in credit card fraud. Keep your credit card inside an opaque sleeve.

[Myself]

It might help you here if you define what privacy is.  Thus far you seem to have differing views on what constitutes privacy.  A concrete is "private" if it is unknown to or protected from some individuals, correct? 

The right to privacy, then, would logically be an extension of the right to property; it is an aspect of disposing of one's property.  It is a broad abstraction that applies to anything that constitutes property, though, and since different types of property are different, it is applied in different fashions.

If one applies it to, say, one's naked body, it means that one is free from being forced to, say, display it to an unchosen individual (say, someone hiding cameras in your home), however, if one leaves open the possibility of someone on their OWN property viewing it accidentally, that's your own problem. 

It also protects you from being forced to, say, disclose your ideas, practices, beliefs, etc.

Privacy (answers.com)

a. The quality or condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others.

b. The state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion: a person's right to privacy.

2. The state of being concealed; secrecy.

Going by the above definition, privacy can be violated in many ways, with force (physical force) being the least likely. The only way one can violate another's privacy using force would be to either break into another's house and violate that state, or by stripping that person and violate the privacy of their body. Clearly initiating physical force is wrong, so in those circumstances it is morally wrong. But what about other, more insidious ways of violating this "right". I remember reading about a new X-Ray machine that was proposed for use at airports, that caused the scanned person to show up completely naked. In this case no force is necessary, to violate one aspect of privacy. If this machine was used privately, than of course this can be avoided by choosing a different airline. It becomes more tricky if this machine became the staple of all airports. And even more so if the government decides that this machine would be useful. It comes down, not to the legal end of it, but the root of the issue which is its moral basis. Can someone (not using physical force) violate this "right" ethically? Is this even a right? Do property rights extend to your body and be derived that way?

This is a pressing issue, especially with emergent technologies that will allow more and more high-tech spying. This also leads back to a corollary of my question: does force always entail physical force? Or can force be defined as something like: action against an individual, which that person did not want or sanction.?

PS. sorry I haven't responded to my own topic, but I have been busy.

Edited April 26, 2005 by Myself

[Tom Robinson]

Going by the above definition, privacy can be violated in many ways, with force (physical force) being the least likely. The only way one can violate another's privacy using force would be to either break into another's house and violate that state, or by stripping that person and violate the privacy of their body. Clearly initiating physical force is wrong, so in those circumstances it is morally wrong. But what about other, more insidious ways of violating this "right". I remember reading about a new X-Ray machine that was proposed for use at airports, that caused the scanned person to show up completely naked. In this case no force is necessary, to violate one aspect of privacy.

X-rays most certainly are a form of force -- if they are used against a subject without his consent or knowledge. When X-rays pass through a body, some of the rays are absorbed by human tissue. Repeated exposure to X-rays can damage organs or induce cancer. Clarence Dally, Edison's assistant, died after X-ray burns on his hands turned cancerous.

This also leads back to a corollary of my question: does force always entail physical force? Or can force be defined as something like: action against an individual, which that person did not want or sanction.?

The example you gave above clearly is a case of physical force.

[source]

What is meant by the "right to privacy?"  Is it a valid right?  Why or why not?

I think people want privacy (and they call it a right) because there are those who use certain information about someone in order to harm them. For example, homosexuals in my country are often afraid of letting others know about their homosexuality, because certain other groups literally hate homosexuals. They'd beat a man to death because of it (and that has happened).

Not long ago a lengthy list of Croatian homosexuals and their cell phone numbers, even their addresses appeared on the Internet (and it was a legitimate one). The gay community saw it as a serious attack on their privacy. When the one who created the list was caught, he explained that all the information on the list was gathered over the Internet, in chat rooms and gay web sites. He only met several people from the list in person.

This leads me to the conclusion that basically, whatever information about you gets publicly known, is your own responsibility. You are the one who let it "leak" somewhere, somehow. Therefore, if you want privacy, keep yours to yourself. The fact that someone has merely gathered this information and put it in one place isn't a violation of your right to anything.

[Groovenstein]

(3) I build miniature remote-controlled blimps that contain remote-controlled telescopic cameras that transmit visual information to me.  The blimps are designed to look like floating advertisements for soda pop.  I fly the blimps near restaurants that have windows with no window coverings.  I record names and credit card numbers and I sell the information to criminal organizations.

Not a rights violation, unless the recorder of restaurants himself engages in credit card fraud.  Keep your credit card inside an opaque sleeve.

Mr. Robinson:

What levels of participation and knowledge, if any, do you believe are sufficient to find the info-seller liable (civilly and/or criminally) as an accomplice to credit card fraud?