What is meant by the “right to privacy?” Is it a valid right? Why or why not?
1 Like
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 ( B) 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.
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?
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.
What I meant was police cameras, such as on stop lights and in public places.
The answer to the question is it is wrong, if it is not in response to the initiation of force.
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.
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.
AR already addressed this argument when talking about roads and speed limits.
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?
I would also like to hear what Miss Rand has to say about roads and speed limits; if you don’t mind sharing.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.