Rights to Privacy
Will Holcomb
CSC 203 - September 16, 2002
One writer defines privacy as "freedom from the inappropriate
judgment of others." Is this a good definition of privacy?
Why or why not? Suppose we use this definition. Should people
have a positive right (claim-right) for this kind of privacy?
Why or why not? Should people have a negative right (liberty)
for this kind of privacy? Why or why not?
I remember watching one of the electronic frontier foundation
movies the last time I had this class and some long haired
hippie fellow defined privacy as "the ability to pretend that
you are like everyone else." I think that definition ties in
with the statement in the prompt and I agree with both. I think
that the value of privacy in inversely proportional to the
strength and rigidity of social strictures. The more confining the
rules the more beneficial it will be to individuals to be able
to avoid sanctions.
I think that the term "inappropriate" is an important
one. Privacy is, to combine in the second statement, the
ability to avoid being understood by someone else. Certain
information is reserved to prevent someone else from forming a
certain conceptualization. I don't know if "inappropriate" is
always applicable though. People are not always entirely behind
their actions. Take porn sites, I'd venture the majority of
porn site subscribers would like to keep their activities a
secret. That doesn't mean though that they all believe that
there is nothing deviant or perverted about looking at
pornography. The term "inappropriate" for me ties in with the
idea of the person keeping the secret believing that the
conceptualization being formed is erroneous. Motivations are
often mottled though and people sometimes believe themselves to
be doing wrong, but still do it. In these cases they may well
believe that the judgment is "appropriate", i.e. true, but
would still want to avoid it.
What rights do people have to privacy? It is certainly a
difficult question. It involves balancing individual liberties
with overall societal good and there is no simple answer. I
personally think that it is an important component of moral and
intellectual development that a person have a reasonably large
amount of freedom to make decisions and suffer the
consequences. Structuring society to provide too much oversight
and control in the end is counter productive because of how it
causes people to develop. It is also important though to have
accountability and a reasonable expectation of safety.
Presenting a blanket statement on privacy is very difficult
given the breadth of the subject. I certainly think that in
any situation where there is not a clear danger to the safety
of other people that individuals have both a liberty and
claim-right to privacy. I am one of few people in the class who
has had a governmental security clearance. I got it while
working on the missile defense program while on co-op. "The
government" does not exist. The government is made up of lots
of people, the vast majority of whom are just normal people off
the streets. Increasingly information really is power, not just
in some philosophical sense of self-efficacy, but the power to
alter the world. In the end is is individuals who hold that
power and allowing it to become concentrated will always be
dangerous.