The "Right to Privacy"

Political Philosophy
21

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.

22

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.

  1. 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.

23

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.

24

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.

25

(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?

26

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.

27

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?

28

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?

29

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.

30

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.

31

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”?

32

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.

33

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?

34

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?

35

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?

36

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.

37

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.

38

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.

39

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?

40

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.