Abstract
In an attempt to capture the diversity of the notions and uses of the term privacy and to do justice to seemingly competing claims, I introduce a working definition of privacy and suggest a possibly fruitful approach. I then illustrate the approach by developing the relation of “private” to “public,” and their use with relation to the internet and cyberspace. Lastly, I argue that the threat to the general public with respect to personal information from commercial interests does not come primarily from infringement on privacy and is appropriately addressed by legislation covering specific harms or wrongs arising from the infringement.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
If it means the right to privacy can be inferred from other rights specified in the Constitution, then the right to privacy is derived from them; if it means that the same reasoning that leads to enumerating the named rights leads to specifying the right to privacy, then it is coequal to them; and if it means that the enumerated rights are derived from the unnamed right to privacy, then it is more basic than they are. See also the discussion in “Penumbra (Law)” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra_(law).
- 2.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (United Nations (UN) 1976) simply repeats the same language. In 2014 the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights issued a document, “The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age” (UN 2014), which cautioned “surveillance threatens individual rights—including to privacy and to freedom of expression and association—and inhibits the free functioning of a vibrant civil society.” The document cited the December 2013, the United Nations General Assembly resolution 68/167 (UN 2013) “which expressed deep concern at the negative impact that surveillance and interception of communications may have on human rights. The General Assembly affirmed that the rights held by people offline must also be protected online, and it called upon all States to respect and protect the right to privacy in digital communication. The General Assembly called on all States to review their procedures, practices, and legislation related to communications surveillance, interception, and collection of personal data, and emphasized the need for States to ensure the full and effective implementation of their obligations under international human rights law.” The 2014 Right to Privacy in the Digital Age adds that “surveillance threatens individual rights—including to privacy and to freedom of expression and association.”
- 3.
Rachels (1975) among others defends the importance of privacy in certain domains in order to maintain personal relations of different kinds. We tell our friends things about ourselves that we do not tell our acquaintances or strangers. And this sharing of information is part of what it means to have a friend. Since such relations are important in making us who and what we are, the privacy necessary to develop such relations is important. The argument is valid, but the defense incomplete. Friendship requires more than information; it involves a personal relationship, shared experiences of a variety of kinds. A defense of privacy, I suggest, should be concerned not only with information, but perhaps more importantly with the limits to freedom or autonomy that loss of privacy produces.
- 4.
Although the information is sent in packets to various relay stations en route, where it might be intercepted, no such interceptor can legitimately claim any right to what is transmitted. I do not deal here with “crackers” (defined as hackers with malicious intent), since their actions are by definition unethical or with hacking since that is not a legitimate means of obtaining information by commercial entities.
- 5.
For a full account of the amount and kind of information Google has on individuals, start by reading Google’s Terms of Agreement statements and the information available on your Google account. Then do a Google search for “What Google Knows About You.” I do not deal here with third party tracking firms or tracking “apps” or with how third parties use the data they purchase—all of which raise issues of legitimate use and possible privacy violations that are seldom raised for public discussion or debate. Facebook’s reach has been extended tremendously by acting as an access point for a multitude of “apps” and services, supplying them in each case with information about the user, which it can link together, mine, and sell.
References
De George RT (2003) The ethics of information technology and business. Blackwell, Oxford
European Union (1995) The data protection directive. EU Directive 95/46/EC. https://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/EU-Directive-95-46-EC-Chapter-1/92.htm. Accessed 25 May 2017
European Union (2016) Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the council. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2016.119.01.0089.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2016:119:TOC. Accessed 25 May 2017
Nissenbaum H (1998) Protecting privacy in an information age: the problem of privacy in public. Law Philos 17:559–596
Rachels J (1975) Why privacy is important. Philos Public Aff 4:323–333
Thomson JJ (1975) The right to privacy. Philos Public Aff 4:295–314
United Nations (1948) Universal declaration of human rights. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/. Accessed 25 May 2017
United Nations, General Assembly (1976) International covenant on civil and political rights. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/ccpr.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2017
United Nations, General Assembly (2013) Resolution 68/167. http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/68/167. Accessed 25 May 2017
United Nations, Human Rights, Office of the High Commission (2014) The right to privacy in the digital age. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/ccpr.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2017
Warren SD, Brandeis LD (1890) The right to privacy. Harv Law Rev 4:193–220
Wikipedia Penumbra (Law). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra_(law). Accessed 25 May 2017
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
De George, R.T. (2018). Privacy, Public Space, and Personal Information. In: Cudd, A., Navin, M. (eds) Core Concepts and Contemporary Issues in Privacy. AMINTAPHIL: The Philosophical Foundations of Law and Justice, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74639-5_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74639-5_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-74638-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-74639-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)