Talk:Privacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Privacy has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	To-do list for Privacy:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
summarize peer review into tasks summarize former featured arcticle text into tasks

Contents 1 Revisions needed 1.1 Issues with the current article 1.2 Possible improvements 2 Money Vs. Electronic funds 3 Interested in Religious Privacy 4 Constitutionality of Privacy Rights 5 On Privacy 6 Rewrite 7 Outing 8 My edit 9 Privacy vs Security 10 Commercial links 11 Internet privacy 12 Does private behavior exist in non-human animals? 13 Government privacy 14 Citation template? 15 Dignity & Privacy 16 Active editors: Have you thought of writing... 17 Privacy in the Workplace 18 Privacy and security trade offs

[edit] Revisions needed

In my opinion, the current Privacy article needs some major work; its an increasingly important subject and deserves an outstanding article that explains it a clear historical, legal, and philosophical framework. Below, I've tried to explain why I think change is needed and how I propose we go about it. Of course, I wouldn't want to reform the entire article without significant discussion and coopoeration so I'm posting my thoughts here. There's a huge amount of information in the article and in many respects, its quite good - please don't think I'm knocking anyone's work - the main problem is in organizing the existing material. I have neither the knowledge nor the time to implement all of these changes myself (at least in the near future) but I'll get to work on it sometime. Once I figure out how, I'll also nominate the article to the Article Improvement Drive to make the work easier.

[edit] Issues with the current article

• lack of cohesiveness: The main problem that I see with the current article is a general lack of cohesiveness. The several sections reflect the piece-meal fashion in which they were assembled - several excellent pieces without a unifying framework. Part of this is also no doubt due to general confusion about the meaning of privacy in its various manifestations. Still, a better effort can be made.
• overlapping categories: Many of the current categories overlap or otherwise aren't completely logical - for example, "privacy during an online job search" is a subset of "internet privacy"; "arguments for/against privacy" certainly has something to do with the trade-off b/w privacy and security; "genetic privacy" seems to be an aspect of "medical privacy"; protection from invasion by certain organizations (government or corporations) is not the same kind of division as protection of certain types of information (medical, political) or protection of certain means (internet) yet they are all in the "types of privacy" section.
• non-encyclopedic content: The article contains several examples of points of view, opinions, and otherwise non-encyclopedic content. Lines such as "when we do online shopping or some other activities, we have to be wary...," though useful advice, don't really belong in an encyclopedia article. Perhaps such content could be included with a cite to a quote or some other authority.
• missing information: Many important aspects of privacy are simply missing: the philosophical underpinnings, physical privacy of the home and body, financial privacy, etc.
• few cites: This is pretty self-explanatory. To retain an objective tone, cites should be included as much as is possible/helpful.
• length: Privacy is a broad and complicated topic. To retain readability, some of the larger sections should be splintered off into separate articles.

[edit] Possible improvements

Divide the existing content into different categories. I'd recommend the following scheme:

• introduction describing what privacy is and its importance, generally;
• types of privacy (physical, informational, decisional, etc.) - many of these probably deserve their own sub-topics.
• areas of privacy (medical, financial, political, religious, etc.) - since most of these are merely different aspects of informational privacy, maybe they can go into an "informational privacy" article...
• justification for privacy - should include philosophical justifications, many of the normative arguments in the current article, some of the topics suggested elsewhere in this discussion by other authors (dignity, etc).
• legal protection of privacy (in the US but at least somewhat comparative) - should discuss constitutional, statutory, and common law bases.
• history of privacy - probably can be meshed into the preceding categories but may deserve its own.
• references
• links - to groups protecting privacy, etc.

Please discuss or just completely dismiss...--Smintsaredelicious 13:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I looked up "privacy" for one reason -- I wanted to know more about the history of privacy, only to find there was nothing about it. I endorse the above suggested improvements.69.6.162.160 23:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson

[edit] Money Vs. Electronic funds

Could someone make a section on how electronic funds could be centralized by the government making rules governing the companies that run the electronic funds system (like if the US Government right now could not make rules governing peoples currency because citizens control if the hand over the physical; note and the benefits/disadvantages of paper money vs. electronic money this article already has some good stuff in it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_money I second here, this article does not specify case law, or SCOTUS case precedence for a right to privacy. I for one find this frightening. There is plenty of caselaw on Wikipedia based on the right to privacy but no fundamental discussion or enumeration of the right to privacy. Trelane 21:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interested in Religious Privacy

Could someone please extend the section of religious privacy?

[edit] Constitutionality of Privacy Rights

This line: "Most countries have laws protecting people's privacy. In some countries this is part of their constitution, such as the United States Bill of Rights" conflicts with the later statement that the right to privacy was decided by the Supreme Court to be "implicit" in the constitution. Given the social tension in the United States over rights afforded to its citizens based on this interpretation, and the possibility that the SCOTUS could some day reverse major privacy-rights decisions, it seems far from clear to me that this issue is as settled as it is made to sound in this article and that the right to privacy is as clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rates as the first statement suggests. A significant body of thought in the United States holds that there is no costitutional right to privacy in the US Constitution, and that it's a fabrication of the judicial branch (I am not saying that I agree with this, nor am I requesting or inviting a debate on it, I honestly don't care either way). I believe that the article is misleading in its language, which implies a clear embodiment of the right to privacy in the constitution, when in fact it has been and continues to be a contentious judicial issue in the USA. Perhaps this could be reflected in the phrasing of how the United States came to legally accept the right to privacy? Something like, "Most countries have laws protecting people's privacy, and many established such rights in legal precedence," etc. I'd be glad to expand this if there's any kind of consensus that it's worth tackling.

Given the absence of any discussion (in particular, any objection), I'm going to update the statement about the constitutionality of privacy rights in the United States. --Bjsiders 15:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC) (Clarification: I'm leaving the section explaining SCOTUS activity on the matter, but removing the implication in the opening statement that privacy rights are spelled out in the US Constitution, leaving France as the sole example of this. The SCOTUS finding that the constitution implicitly spells out privacy rights is still there, that's an indisputable fact. That the constitution actually does contain privacy rights is not.)

[edit] On Privacy

Is privacy a question of culture or an intrinsic need that everyone feels?

Today, most people believe privacy deals with one's personal life; that is, the life people usually don't see, or don't know about once in the home, or out of the public eye. Most ideas about privacy tend to favour the values of individualism against the values of society, and are usually associated with the distinction between public and private life.

Privacy is as much a relationship with society and culture as it is to one's self. We will show how Mrs DelChambre, Gauchet, Hall, and Prost view notions of privacy and try to demonstrate that even though privacy is expressed differently in different cultures, it is a universal desire that doesn't depend on one's culture or social standing.

Delchambre, our expert, believes privacy in the family tends to be a more individualist experience, where fathers are the predominant parental authority regulating tensions between siblings. He says that as the economy evolved from a rigid system to a more flexible one, autonomy and competition replaced traditional social norms of inter-dependency and cooperation. And, he finds these social values squandering privacy in the home.

He tells us to be aware that even though some subjects may be considered taboo in one culture (like homosexuality), they may be accepted quite naturally in another. However, incest remains a universal forbiddance due to the negative view of the immoral conduct.

During the Middle Ages, as soon as elder sons came of age and inherited their father?s fortune, Delchambre says they often married for financial interest, with little or no love for their spouse. Eventually, less fortunate brothers relied on love speech to climb the social latter based on their moral and aesthetic qualities.

Today, similar arguments (like wealth) still exist. We live in an unstable world where love and friendship become reassuring values. Where families, once considered very strict, serve to protect against a world without compassion. A world where love becomes an illusion and friendship a game played to make life more intense.

Moreover, we base more and more of our intimate relationships on capitalist economic logic: we take advantage of others for profit and reject those with nothing to offer. The social and economic logic encroaches upon the intimate life, which eventually leads to confusion between the once autonomous spheres.

The intimate life is often exploited at work. The desire is universal. Man wants what he doesn?t have, and what he does have loses its value. In accordance with capitalist logic, people need to increase their capital of charm. The result is those who are liked by many despise those who offer themselves freely while others with little charm strive in vain to please.

According to Gauchet, the individual is afraid of personal relationships, affections. He loses contact with others or feels too close to others who are eventually considered annoying and irritating. There is loss of marks, crisis of symbolism. Privacy is a universal need because we are ever complete, always inadequate, always in search of love and compassion.

Is our notion of privacy bound to our culture or is it rather an intrinsic need?

Animals, including primates, excrete and fornicate without shame or need for privacy. At some point during human development, one can postulate (but not prove, unfortunately) that "privacy" became an issue.

The ancient Romans used co-ed public privies with no "stalls" or partitions! Our medieval ancestors slept in a common room in the castle (if they were lucky). If not, they slept in their one-room hut with all the children. In fact, this went on well through colonial times in America. These sleeping arrangements tend to have implications for sexual contact.

E.T. Hall writes in his book ?The Hidden Dimension? about the different ways people experience privacy in different cultures. He studied the relationship between two individuals in one country with similar backgrounds and then compared his findings with two individuals from two different cultures and nationalities.

According to Hall, the following four categories define existing relationships among men (ordered from closest to farest) :

• a) intimate,
• b) personal,
• c) social, and
• d) public.

These would be the result of the perception of our five senses.

He concludes there exist many differences between the notions of closeness, intrusion, and privacy in relationships between people. Much misunderstanding stems from ignorance of these differences. Hall also tackles the issue of overpopulation and urban congestion that shrinks the frontiers of public and private spaces. People no longer have the opportunity to be on their own. They don?t have anymore privacy.

Hall believes overpopulation tends to increase hostility as different urban cultures clash, which, in turn, adds to community stress and criminality. He suggests we set aside public spaces and develop city parks. He believes the environment can enhance relationships between men.

In his ?Story of Private Life?, Antoine Prost writes about how private life in France evolved in different social classes during the latter half of the twentieth century.

Prost found working and upper class lifestyles to be very different from each other. The very meaning of private life and public life differs with each social standing. Upper class families tend to have bigger houses with many rooms to separate personal intimacy in the home. Wealthy families believe privacy is a social privilege. Poorer families, on the other hand, do not have the luxury of separate rooms and share personal intimacy in close environments.

During the twentieth century, work migrated from the private to the public sphere and lead to the privatisation of domestic spaces. This social change individualised public and private life.

Today, society tends to universalise all culture and reject minority communities. The media bombards us everyday with messages that make it harder to find alternative ways of life. We seek public places to find anonymity in the crowd.

Since the notion of privacy is felt differently in different cultures, it?s important to be aware of these differences so communities can grow more tolerant and learn to respect each other. The more we learn about different cultures, the more we know about our own.

The engineer?s job is key to the notion of privacy. When designing interior space, architects strive to create more distance for personal intimacy. Since they define the physical size of privacy in the home, they need to be aware of cultural definitions of intimacy so they are better prepared to deal with diverse populations.

The same can be said for city planning. Urban development must take these issues into account and propose solutions to solve them. City planners must emphasis plans to promote harmony between cultures. They must make sure housing doesn?t become cramped due to overpopulation. Every family member is entitled to a private life. Parks must be built to allow citizens to get out of the family unit and stress of city life.

New technologies are changing notions of privacy. Helping deter criminality, surveillance systems spy us in public places. The invention of the Internet and e-mail allows more contact between people and challenges our notions of privacy.

Privacy continues to be an essential ingredient for a healthy society.

still missing Wikipedia:Privacy or Wikipedia:Privacy Policy --Nerd 20:50 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)

---

There are some considerations I feel need to enter into any netrual description of privacy. One is the way the modern American view of privacy (for better or worse) differs from almost any other past or present view of privacy. Many Americans expect their privacy to be protected by external means even when their actions do little to protect the same "privacy". I can give examples if this is not clear. This being the case, one of the ways that privacy, in the American sense of the word, is lost is that it is in fact given away, often with some expectation that everyone else has a duty to give it back. [[User:CyborgTosser|CyborgTosser (Only half the battle)]] 23:31, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I've rewritten the article. If anyone has any feedback I'd be glad to hear it! Talrias (t | e | c) 11:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outing

I think that outing, while sometimes done for political reasons, should go in another section. The new section should include (but not necessarily be limited to) protection from investigation of sexual activity (with outing as just one example). I'm not sure what to call it, though, and we might want to make it even broader so as to include other issues like keeping drug use private. Let me know what you think. Dave (talk)

Maybe a new subsection for the consensual crimes, under the Privacy law section? Talrias (t | e | c) 16:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

What would we do with legal consensual actions that are kept private to prevent stigma (like being an alcoholic or engaging in sodomy post-legalization)? Dave (talk) 20:37, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My edit

I am making a fairly brutal edit and hopefully don't lose any sense in doing it. Some things I have dropped for now.

• The level of privacy which a person desires to have depends on the circumstances, as there are different types of privacy.

I think I know some places where this is going, but the thought isn't complete .

• monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force

I removed this since you don't need to have the monopoly in order to punish. "Terrorists" often punish quite effectively with illegal force. I've put in place what I think covers all that is needed.

• Laws protecting people's privacy are classed as civil liberties.

this is not really correct; the liberties are themselves independent of the laws. Maybe "laws protecting people's privacy seen as an important way for defending people's civil liberties" ?

Mozzerati 18:26, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

[edit] Privacy vs Security

It seems strange that this trade-off section comes first. Seems like it's a detailed concept that belongs lower down on the page, perhaps as a sub-section of "Privacy laws". —Wahoofive (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I agree, in the sense that before that there should be sections "what is privacy" (giving a definition and limitations) and "different views on privacy" (talking about different cultures and their views on privacy and different political and power groups and their views on privacy). These sections are currently partly covered in the introduction and need expanded and broken out. However, I think that the discussion of privacy and security (probably more general than the trade-off section I wrote) should immediately follow. Privacy is directly an aspect of security. Everybody's own interest is their own maximum privacy (only disclose publically that which you wish to disclose). Everybody has a direct interest in invading other people's privacy (is my neighbour building a bomb in his flat??, he may not want me to know, but I sure do). Privacy is basically defined by the ability to keep seret that which someone else doesn't want you to keep secret. That means that privacy basically is a trade-off between your wishes and someone elses wishes and that almost inevitably makes it a security issue.

Please note also, that privacy as a security issue and security issues in privacy exist even where there is no legal framework. The work of tabloid journalists in the UK is quite often legal, but that doesn't stop the famous from using security measures to stop them. Also note that tabloid journalists have no legal "right" to access the information they do access, but do so anyway. Mozzerati 20:11, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial links

62.162.222.129 (talk · contributions) added a commercial link, which I've reverted. The page is advertising a book which discusses the issue while adding very little useful information. --Deathphoenix 20:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Internet privacy

The Internet privacy article has recently undergone some cleanup. It may benefit from further review. One-dimensional Tangent (Talk) 00:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Does private behavior exist in non-human animals?

I am interested in finding out if there can be found analogues to the human desire for privacy in the behavior of other species, or if it is for the most part strictly a human manifestation. This question doesn't seem to be addressed in the current version of this article. Ground 23:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Government privacy

Privacy is defined here as an individual or group keeping information to themselves. By this definition that group could also be a government. So is espionage also an invasion of privacy? If not, what kinds of groups are meant? DirkvdM 12:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Citation template?

This article was cited (http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=2107). I believe there is a template (i've seen it before) for this, but I couldn't find it. Caleb 04:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dignity & Privacy

This article is very limited in scope, and "reasons for privacy" completely ignores the common basis of understanding e.g. in medical ethics that without privacy, dignity is severely impaired.

The same argument applies all cultures. 24.86.203.199 09:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Active editors: Have you thought of writing...

...an article about GPS/SMS bugs? These tiny devices, hidden somewhere at your car, determine its position via GPS and transmit the coordinates via GSM's (or other standards') SMS service to your surveillant(s). They are apparently widely abused by the LEC, secret services or private snoops, thereby infringing on basic civil liberties. Also the aspect of possible counter-weapons could be discussed.

Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_Positioning_System and check out '14: GPS tracking'. Feel free to contact me directly, if you prefer.

Michael

http://worldimprover.net/EN/en8.html

[edit] Privacy in the Workplace

Deleted copyright violation, complete paste from http://conference.eicar.org/conference-old/2005/programme/SpeakersAndAbstracts.htm

I'm not sure about the other edit from the same person. -- Perspective 21:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Privacy and security trade offs

As an European I think it can be complete without : "Privacy and Liberty trade offs." "Privacy and Democracy trade offs." Ericd 01:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)