Should people have a right to privacy?

[Uraniun235]

The thread on a hypothetical American civilian disarmament, and some of the responses to it, has led me to consider that this topic may hold some potential for lively debate.

Should people have a right to privacy from the government?

This thread is not about legal precedent; referencing legal documents is therefore irrelevant.

[Justforfun000]

Absolutely. The reasons for privacy are many, but even some of the most obvious are good enough.

1) People are judgemental and many personal choices one wants to make have the right to be circumspect. Who needs assholes throwing their self-righteous opinions at you for every little ethical choice you make?

2) We have a right to do certain activities like bathing without people watching us and making us uncomfortable.

3) Decisions made in business meetings affect the future of companies and employees and making everything public would cause countless problems.

4) The military demands privacy even above and beyond personal privacy for reasons of national security. Obviously the suggestion that they be completely open to inspection by the public is ludicrous.

That's just off the top of my head. Privacy is totally necessary and should be an absolute right unless you pose a danger to society that requires you to lose your right to privacy. THEN it would be a conditional privilege. As in jail for example.

[Darth Raptor]

You can't have a right to something that doesn't exist. It's as nonsensical as demanding a right to peace and quiet. There's no realistic way to prevent the government from accessing personal information. As information and communication technology improve, it will only become more problematic. Rather than enshrining some kind of "right to privacy", society would be better served by regulating what information the government can act on and what information it can make public. That would be slightly further within the realm of feasibility.

[Justforfun000]

You can't have a right to something that doesn't exist.

Sure you can.

US Declaration of Rights:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Liberty doesn't "exist" except in a conceptual form the same as privacy yet it's enshrined as a right.

[Ender]

You can't have a right to something that doesn't exist.

Sure you can.

US Declaration of Rights:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Liberty doesn't "exist" except in a conceptual form the same as privacy yet it's enshrined as a right.

1) That's the Declaration of Independence
2) The first 10 ammendments, better known as the Bill of Rights, does not directly grant the right of privacy, it only exists through interpration of them (hence the debate over Roe vs Wade)

[Darth Raptor]

Liberty doesn't "exist" except in a conceptual form the same as privacy yet it's enshrined as a right.

And doing so is completely meaningless. Vague platitudes like that in legal documents are just there to make people feel good. Define "liberty" in any meaningful way. You can't. The state will not hesitate to railroad right over that liberty if it sees fit to do so. Ergo, it's not an "inalienable right" at all. The very same is true for life and the pursuit of happiness. It's all vague, grandiose bullshit that was put there for feelgood reasons. Laws that dictate what the people and the state can't do and can't have make infinitely more sense than declarations of what the people can do and can have. Most of the things you hold to be "rights" are entirely situational and can (and should) be compromised on a moment's notice. Where's your right to liberty aboard a ship? Where's your right to the pursuit of happiness in a shortage crisis? Where's your right to life when you're violent, inhuman scum? Likewise, where's your right to privacy when the government knows all that shit anyway?

[brianeyci]

I tend to associate rights with things like food, shelter, safety, medical care, freedom from discrimination, things like that. So the question to me would be: does privacy make a person human. Because if a human being can live without privacy (which I assume means things like data collection, not that Star Trek episode with a million people per square inch of planet), then it's not a right.

I don't think privacy is a right any more than smoking is a right or driving is a right or owning a gun is a right. Just because it makes people uncomfortable that the government knows where you live and how old you are, that doesn't mean you have a right to hide it.

For example: telemarketers, survey people. Many people hate these kinds of companies. They even insist they have a right to hide their phone numbers and identities from them. No, they do not. The phone numbers are freely available in a government publication called a telephone book, with your name attached to it. And even if you delist your number does that mean your rights are being violated if someone calls you. Of course not. When they call you ten times the same day then maybe it's a case for harassment, but some people want to go all mountain man and live off the grid... it's just ridiculous to think that's a right.

[Darth Wong]

Absolutely. The reasons for privacy are many, but even some of the most obvious are good enough.

1) People are judgemental and many personal choices one wants to make have the right to be circumspect. Who needs assholes throwing their self-righteous opinions at you for every little ethical choice you make?

2) We have a right to do certain activities like bathing without people watching us and making us uncomfortable.

3) Decisions made in business meetings affect the future of companies and employees and making everything public would cause countless problems.

4) The military demands privacy even above and beyond personal privacy for reasons of national security. Obviously the suggestion that they be completely open to inspection by the public is ludicrous.

That's just off the top of my head. Privacy is totally necessary and should be an absolute right unless you pose a danger to society that requires you to lose your right to privacy. THEN it would be a conditional privilege. As in jail for example.

Christ, talk about circular logic and a priori arguments. Why don't you just say "because I say so"?

[Justforfun000]

Ender said:

1) That's the Declaration of Independence

Oops. My mistake.

2) The first 10 ammendments, better known as the Bill of Rights, does not directly grant the right of privacy, it only exists through interpration of them (hence the debate over Roe vs Wade)

Darth Raptor said:

And doing so is completely meaningless. Vague platitudes like that in legal documents are just there to make people feel good. Define "liberty" in any meaningful way. You can't. The state will not hesitate to railroad right over that liberty if it sees fit to do so. Ergo, it's not an "inalienable right" at all.

It may be meaningless, but they did enshrine it. You said they couldn't.
And the OP asked in the first place whether we SHOULD have a right to privacy and that the question isn't based on legal arguments anyway, so he wanted opinions. That's all I gave along with some examples the great majority of people I daresay would agree with me on, no?

Brianeyci said:

I don't think privacy is a right any more than smoking is a right or driving is a right or owning a gun is a right. Just because it makes people uncomfortable that the government knows where you live and how old you are, that doesn't mean you have a right to hide it.

So you wouldn't argue if they set a camera up in your shower for anyone to see? We have to have SOME kinds of privacy for heaven's sake. Why shouldn't that be a right?

Darth Wong said:

Christ, talk about circular logic and a priori arguments. Why don't you just say "because I say so"?

A Priori? I think you have this mixed up with an "A Posteriori " argument.

As one definition puts it:

Examples of a posteriori justification include many ordinary perceptual, memorial, and introspective beliefs, as well as belief in many of the claims of the natural sciences. My belief that it is presently raining, that I administered an exam this morning, that humans tend to dislike pain, that water is H2O, and that dinosaurs existed, are all examples of a posteriori justification. I have good reasons to support each of these claims and these reasons emerge from my own experience or from that of others.

I can certainly claim that my own experience and those of others would support my claim that the average person would feel very uncomfortable to have the public watch them shower.
I can also claim that my own experiences and many others have made it clear to me that people do not like the public knowing their personal affairs, especially in regards to activities some might consider vices or morally questionable. I can say the same for the other two as well.
Do you actually disagree with those examples personally? I mean, do you think they are not reasonable points?

[Keevan_Colton]

It may be meaningless, but they did enshrine it. You said they couldn't.

Just because you can write something down doesnt make it true...

[Justforfun000]

Just because you can write something down doesnt make it true...

No argument here.

[Keevan_Colton]

Just because you can write something down doesnt make it true...

No argument here.

You'll realize then that "They enshrined it..." (Wrote it down) doesnt refute the point that was made then.

[Justforfun000]

You'll realize then that "They enshrined it..." (Wrote it down) doesnt refute the point that was made then.

I was only replying to the one thing that Darth Raptor said:

"You can't have a right to something that doesn't exist."

I proved that you can. America did it. He's absolutely right as to his arguments that you can't TRULY enshrine it in a sensible way, but they did it anyway.

[Keevan_Colton]

Is that the logic of this statement I see winging its way over your head?

If I write down "Justforfun is a fish" does that suddenly mean you develop gills or scales?

Just writing down that people have the right to liberty doesnt mean they have it and it doesnt mean that it can really exist either...it just means you've written it down.

[Justforfun000]

Is that the logic of this statement I see winging its way over your head?

If I write down "Justforfun is a fish" does that suddenly mean you develop gills or scales?

Just writing down that people have the right to liberty doesnt mean they have it and it doesnt mean that it can really exist either...it just means you've written it down.

You seem to be misunderstanding me.

I simply countered his claim that you "can't" enshrine it. America DID enshrine a right called liberty that is just as nebulous as privacy, in fact, it's arguably more so. I then posted the proof of this by quoting said document. So that all I needed to do in order to refute what he said. That's very simple logic.

I already agreed that doesn't make them ACTUALLY a "right" in reality, but they claim that it is as a legal declaration. So what exactly are you arguing with me about? The OP asked if we should have the right to privacy. I gave reasons why I think we should and that's as far as it went. I haven't heard any reasons specifically refuting those 4 examples yet, so I'm waiting to hear why someone would disagree with me so far.

[General Zod]

>snip<

When you bring personal discomfort and personal dislike of things into the equation for figuring out whether something should be a right or a law, you wind up having things like banning homosexuals from marrying or equal rights for women because some people don't like it or are uncomfortable with it. Try again.

[Lord Zentei]

Here's another idea:

The government exists to serve the people. Therefore, when it comes to things the government may or may not do to its citizens you need reasons to permit things rather than reasons to prohibit them, in contrast to the reverse as is normally the case.

[Justforfun000]

When you bring personal discomfort and personal dislike of things into the equation for figuring out whether something should be a right or a law, you wind up having things like banning homosexuals from marrying or equal rights for women because some people don't like it or are uncomfortable with it. Try again.

Well that was only a portion of my examples. The one about business would be arguing in terms of dollars and cents and how for example, you need privacy in terms of things like secret recipes like Coca Cola. Otherwise they would not be able to sell it exclusively. That is a form of privacy.

I can't imagine needing to explain the need for national security.

Now as to being uncomfortable, it depends on how reasonable a request it is. Invading someone's privacy while they are bathing is bothering the person being observed, and the expectation of same is not hurting another individual. Being uncomfortable about homosexuality and trying to prevent them from doing things publicly, IS hurting someone else and therefore it is not a reasonable expectation. This is in general a board full of very intelligent people, so I really didn't see the need to explain this in such detail. Isn't it obvious that I'm listing reasonable examples of privacy expectation? I never implied ANY demand of privacy is warranted as a "right".

The government exists to serve the people. Therefore, when it comes to things the government may or may not do to its citizens you need reasons to permit things rather than reasons to prohibit them, in contrast to the reverse as is normally the case.

Do you really believe that? I think I believe just the opposite. Why? Because quite frankly, if the government is really there to "serve" me, why am I never asked my opinion? I have never in my life been able to directly put forth my opinion or vote on any decisions regarding law and order in my society. That doesn't feel very much like being "represented". Even the people you vote for don't usually represent you much either. They serve their own self-interests most of the time along with partisan policies.

[General Zod]

Well that was only a portion of my examples. The one about business would be arguing in terms of dollars and cents and how for example, you need privacy in terms of things like secret recipes like Coca Cola. Otherwise they would not be able to sell it exclusively. That is a form of privacy.

Better, but it doesn't explain why it's necessary on a personal level. Perhaps if you tried arguing from a standpoint that didn't involve appeals to emotion.

Now as to being uncomfortable, it depends on how reasonable a request it is.

A reasonable request will not depend on vague appeals to emotion or circular logic.

Invading someone's privacy while they are bathing is bothering the person being observed, and the expectation of same is not hurting another individual. Being uncomfortable about homosexuality and trying to prevent them from doing things publicly, IS hurting someone else and therefore it is not a reasonable expectation. This is in general a board full of very intelligent people, so I really didn't see the need to explain this in such detail. Isn't it obvious that I'm listing reasonable examples of privacy expectation?

Some of them are, but many of them are appeals to emotion and rely upon circular reasoning, such as this one:

2) We have a right to do certain activities like bathing without people watching us and making us uncomfortable.

So we have the right to privacy because. . .we have the right to do some activities privately because it's uncomfortable to have other people watching us do them? What?

I never implied ANY demand of privacy is warranted as a "right".

Privacy is totally necessary and should be an absolute right unless you pose a danger to society that requires you to lose your right to privacy

Ahem. How do you plan on showing that some people are a danger to society without violating some rights to privacy, exactly?

[Justforfun000]

So we have the right to privacy because. . .we have the right to do some activities privately because it's uncomfortable to have other people watching us do them? What?

Ok, how would you put forth a right to bathing privacy at home? Since I doubt you or most others would argue otherwise, I'm assuming it's the way I'm presenting my point that you are having a problem with. DW mentioned it before as well, but I guess I'm not really getting what's wrong with emotional appeals as having any merit. What's wrong with caring about how people feel? We even give monetary recompense to people who went through "pain and suffering", and how else would that be argued then by an emotional appeal? What's wrong with this being a valid point of reason?

You wrote:
Privacy is totally necessary and should be an absolute right unless you pose a danger to society that requires you to lose your right to privacy

Ahem. How do you plan on showing that some people are a danger to society without violating some rights to privacy, exactly?

On reading that again, I disagree with the way I said that. It was far too strong and too vague.

I will amend that privacy should be a reasonable expectation when it involves your personal wishes and comfort providing this does not harm others, and it is legal in society at the time. Of course this would have to be dependant on individual cases of contestment to determine where the lines are drawn, but I would venture to say that was reasonable to expect.

[Darth Raptor]

Here's another idea:

The government exists to serve the people. Therefore, when it comes to things the government may or may not do to its citizens you need reasons to permit things rather than reasons to prohibit them, in contrast to the reverse as is normally the case.

I was with you at the beginning, but you lost me at the end there. What would you suggest? A law that states that the government should respect a citizen's privacy? Leaving aside the infeasibility of that for a moment, wouldn't a better law be worded as what information the government CAN'T access?

Here's the problem: You have agencies of the government with the capability to access this information. For obvious national security reasons, the only oversight these agencies get are from other arms of the government. Barring a spectacular security leak, it's therefore impossible for the citizen to know if the government is breaking its own privacy laws or not. Like I said earlier, a much more feasible approach would be to regulate what information the government can act on and what information it can make public. Violations of those statutes would be trivially easy to catch. And if your deepest, darkest shames are only known to some dork in Langley (or the equivalent in your country) who's sworn to secrecy, what do you care? You've achieved the same utility (virtual privacy) without breaking the system trying to achieve an impossibility (true privacy). Unless "privacy" really means "the ability to do all sorts of illegal shit and have the government not know about it". But I don't think you're really arguing in favor of that.

[Lord Zentei]

I was with you at the beginning, but you lost me at the end there. What would you suggest? A law that states that the government should respect a citizen's privacy? Leaving aside the infeasibility of that for a moment, wouldn't a better law be worded as what information the government CAN'T access?

Not really, since then it would make abuse easier, and would place less incentive for authorities to make the law keep pace with technological development.

New source of information access? When is the law restricting the government's access coming up? Anytime soon? Probably not.

Here's the problem: You have agencies of the government with the capability to access this information. For obvious national security reasons, the only oversight these agencies get are from other arms of the government. Barring a spectacular security leak, it's therefore impossible for the citizen to know if the government is breaking its own privacy laws or not.

Mutual oversight of branches of government, while imperfect, is still better than giving them de facto carte blanche.

Like I said earlier, a much more feasible approach would be to regulate what information the government can act on and what information it can make public. Violations of those statutes would be trivially easy to catch.

That too can be done: these types of measures are not mutually exclusive after all. However, I disagree that it would be trivially easy to catch violations: if it is "impossible" to prevent them from accessing certain types of information, how are you going to prevent them from acting on certain types of information during investigations? The specifics of investigations are not on the public record, after all. Moreover, government agencies are masters at leaking sensetive information while keeping the particular perp unknown.

And if your deepest, darkest shames are only known to some dork in Langley (or the equivalent in your country) who's sworn to secrecy, what do you care? You've achieved the same utility (virtual privacy) without breaking the system trying to achieve an impossibility (true privacy). Unless "privacy" really means "the ability to do all sorts of illegal shit and have the government not know about it". But I don't think you're really arguing in favor of that.

Obviously not.

[Ericxihn]

Inherent in privacy is the right for you to make decisions that affect yourself and don't harm other people. Roe v. Wade was based on the principle of privacy, that what a women did with her body was here business and that the government, or anyone else, had not right to go there and regulate that. Similarly, its not the business of the government to know about or act upon decisions you've made that will harm no one else, such as what porn you watch, what sex toys you use or whether or not you're engaging in a consensual homosexual relationship. Nobody, in fact, should have knowledge about your life or lifestyle choices unless you have explicitly given your permission or somebody else would be harmed if the information wasn't given.
The people can choose that such rights in some cases should be waived for the good of society, but in cases where the law isn't clear, privacy should be held.

[Keevan_Colton]

Except how can someone know if you're harming others or not if they cant know what you're doing?

The notion of not being allowed to act and discriminate on the basis of knowledge is a far better one than some knowledge being forbidden. After all how do you know if you're allowed to know it or not until you know what it is?

[Justforfun000]

Except how can someone know if you're harming others or not if they cant know what you're doing?

But to take this to its logical conclusion, you would suggest cameras being installed in your own living room for the government to monitor you. You can't truly be in favour of that??