Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
daniel j. solove why privacy matters
essays about privacy
daniel j. solove why privacy matters
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: daniel j. solove why privacy matters
With continuing revelations of government surveillance, much has been said about the “trade-off” between privacy and security and finding the “right balance” between the two. As Michael Lynch, a professor of philosophy at the University of Connecticut, wrote in an opinion piece in the New York Times, “this way of framing the issue makes sense if [one] understand[s] privacy solely as a political or legal concept.” In this context, the loss of privacy might seem to be a small price to pay to ensure one's safety. However, the relevance of privacy extends far beyond the political and legal sphere. Privacy – or the lack thereof – affects all aspects of one's life; it is a state of human experience. In this sense, privacy, from the symbolic interactionist position that the self is created through social interaction, is a necessary precondition for the creation and preservation of the self. The “self” entails personhood, autonomy, and identity.
Privacy can be experienced in a number of forms. Alan Westin defined four states – or experiences – of privacy: solitude, intimacy, anonymity, and reserve. Solitude is a physical separation from others (31). Intimacy is a “close, relaxed, and frank relationship between two or more individuals” resulting from the “corporate [collective] seclusion” of a small unit (31). Anonymity is the “desire of individuals for times of 'public privacy'” (32). Lastly, reserve is the “creation of a psychological barrier against unwanted intrusion [which] occurs when the individual's need to limit communication about himself is protected by the willing discretion of those surrounding around him” (32). It is this last state of privacy that is the most crucial to the preservation of the self. As Robert Murphy observe...
... middle of paper ...
...A Behavioural Understanding of Privacy and Its Implications for Privacy Law.” The Modern Law Review 75.5 (2012): 806 – 836. Web. 19 Dec. 2013.
Kufer, Joseph. “Privacy, Autonomy, and Self-Concept.” American Philosophical Quarterly 24.1 (1987): 81 – 89. Web. 19 Dec. 2013.
Lynch, Michael. “Privacy and the Threat to the Self.” The New York Times 22 June 2012: n. pag. Web. 19 Dec. 2013.
Murphy, Robert. “Social Distance and the Veil.” American Anthropologist 66.6 (1964): 1257 – 1274. Web. 19 Dec. 2013.
Reiman, Jeffrey. “Privacy, Intimacy, and Personhood.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 6.1 (1976): 26 – 44. Web. 19 Dec. 2013.
Smith, Jenna (2001). “Privacy and Private States.” The Private I: Privacy in a Public World. Ed. Molly Peacock. Saint Paul: Graywolf Press, 2001. 3 – 22. Web. 19 Dec. 2013.
Westin, Alan. Privacy and Freedom. New York: Atheneum, 1967. Web. 19 Dec. 2013.
One of the most sacred ideas that we hold dear is our right to privacy. It a simple correlation between being free and doing what we want, legally speaking, in our own homes and lives. Unfortunately, our lives seem to become less...
But not only is it difficult to prove that corporations are more efficient with their privacy than individuals are, this also circles back to the policy’s affect on individual autonomy. And I believe it is necessary for Posner to consider the implications of his argument for humanity: an ethics argument that does not propose the betterment of society is unlikely to lead to better laws. For although Posner could use his claim that “history does not teach that privacy is a precondition to creativity or individuality” to argue against privacy’s relation to autonomy, it is inevitable that his policy would impact society for good or bad (Posner 407). Posner needs to address the effect by presenting contemporary evidence to support the view that privacy is unimportant to human emotion and individuality since his historical argument is irrelevant. Early philosophers such as Aristotle recognized the important “distinction between the public sphere of political action and the private sphere associated with family and domestic life,” and so while privacy may not have looked the same in these past societies, it nevertheless did exist (DeCew). Since cultures and social conditions have changed dramatically since Aristotle’s time, it is difficult to make a relevant comparison between privacy then and
Privacy is a complex concept with no universal definition as its meaning changes with society. Invasion of privacy occurs when there is an intrusion upon the reasonable expectation to be left alone. There has been a growing debate about the legitimacy of privacy in public
Benjamin Franklin once said: “ They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.“ Today, we may agree or disagree with Franklin’s quote, but we do have one thing in common: just as Franklin, we are still seeing freedom vs. security as a zero-sum game – one where one can gain only at the expense of another and where the two cannot possibly coexist. However, this is not necessarily the case. There does not have to be necessarily a trade-off between privacy and security; the proper balance is the one where neither security nor privacy suffers from both of them being present in our daily lives.
The word “privacy” has a different meaning in our society than it did in previous times. You can put on Privacy settings on Facebook, twitter, or any social media sights, however, nothing is truly personal and without others being able to view your information. You can get to know a person’s personal life simply by typing in their name in google. In the chronicle review, “Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide,'" published on May 15th 2011, Professor Daniel J. Solove argues that the issue of privacy affects more than just individuals hiding a wrong. The nothing-to-hide argument pervades discussions about privacy. Solove starts talking about this argument right away in the article and discusses how the nothing-to-hide
Civil liberties is a term coined by the United States that guarantees certain rights to the people by the Bill of Rights. Although the Right to Privacy is not officially enumerated into the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruled that citizens do in fact, have the right to their own privacy in their own home and their own beliefs. Privacy rights are an essential part of everyday American lives, in that everyone should be given the right to do whatever they want to do in privacy without anyone judging them or knowing what they have done. The right to privacy can also be considered jeopardizing to society because if someone is doing everything privately, including planning some sort of abomination or is doing something illegal, and the police does not find out, it can cause some serious damage to the society. The Patriot Act was enacted after 9-11 to ensure security among the nation. By doing so, the United States implemented strategies in protecting the people, such as decrease privacy rights that were “given” to the people. Also, in today’s society, iphones have an a setting in which the phone can track your location and so-call “help” you do whatever you need the phone to do. According to the Usatoday’s article, location services through GPS coordinates one’s online post and photos, in that one does not even know they are exposing their private lives to the online world. Although, The right to privacy plays an important role in keeping everyday Americans the will to do whatever they want in private, it may cause potential trouble in keeping everything a secret, even illegal actions.
have suggested that until powerful information technologies were applied to the collection and analysis of information about people, there was no general and systematic threat to privacy in public. Privacy, as such, was well-enough protected by a combination of conscious and intentional efforts (including the promulgation of law and moral norms) abetted by inefficiency. It is not surprising, therefore, that theories were not shaped in response to the issue of privacy in public; the issue did not yet exist. (17)
The word “privacy” did not grow up with us throughout history, as it was already a cultural concept by our founding fathers. This term was later solidified in the nineteenth century, when the term “privacy” became a legal lexicon as Louis Brandeis (1890), former Supreme Court justice, wrote in a law review article, that, “privacy was the right to be let alone.” As previously mentioned in the introduction, the Supreme Court is the final authority on all issues between Privacy and Security. We started with the concept of our fore fathers that privacy was an agreed upon concept that became written into our legal vernacular. It is being proven that government access to individual information can intimidate the privacy that is at the very center of the association between the government and the population. The moral in...
Solove, Daniel J. “5 Myths about Privacy” Washington Post: B3. Jun 16 2013. SIRS. Web. 10
The article “When Privacy Is Theft” from The New York Review of Books published online on November 21, 2013 provides Margaret Atwood, an award winning novelist, the opportunity to closely examine the symbolism, purpose, and thought process behind Dave Eggers widely successful novel The Circle, published in October 2013 (“Margaret Atwood”). Atwood presents much evidence and analysis of Eggers’ work to arrive inductively at the strong argument that “To live entirely in public is a form of solitary confinement” (Atwood). Atwood began her inductive reasoning by first examining the central ideas, or perhaps motifs, present in Eggers’ The Circle. She examines the idea of privacy, more specifically who owns and controls individual and collective privacy, by arguing “What is withheld can be as
Although the right to privacy has been used to sway the outcome of many U.S court cases, including the famous Supreme Court ruling of Roe vs. Wade, there is still some debate over how the “right to privacy” should be viewed. For example both Judith Jarvis Thompson, and James Rachels agree that the right to privacy is indeed a right that is bestowed upon citizens, however their perception of how one is granted this right is quite different.
Tomescu, Madalina, and Liliana Trofin. "Identity, Security and Privacy in the Information Society." Contemporary readings in law and social justice 2.2 (2010): 307-12. Print.
[4] H. Nissenbaum. Toward an Approach to Privacy in Public: Challenges of Information Technology. Ethics & Behavior, 7(3): 207-220, 1997.
Gonchar, Michael. “What Is More Important: Our Privacy or National Security?” New York Times. New York Times, 17 Sept. 2013. Web. 22 Feb. 2014.
Security plays an important job in today’s society, which is to prohibit any type of incoming danger. People want to believe that security is accommodating sanctuary, on the other hand, it is just a false belief. In her article, “Trading Liberty for Illusions”, Wendy Kaminer, a lawyer, claims that people are giving up their privacy for security that is essentially non-existent. The reasons for Kaminer’s assertion is because of the problems of fear and distrust that are arising from face-recognition systems. From my perspective, Kaminer wants the readers, after reading the article, to regain their privacy and only trade it in for security that absolutely provides safety to the society.