The Right to Privacy essays In the ..

of the United States have a "Right to Privacy." How do these judges make the ..

On the other side, more theorists have argued that there issomething fundamental and distinctive and coherent about the variousclaims that have been called privacy interests. On this view, privacyhas value as a coherent and fundamental concept, and most individualsrecognize it as a useful concept as well. Those who endorse this viewmay be called coherentists. Nevertheless, it is important torecognize that coherentists have quite diverse, and sometimesoverlapping, views on what it is that is distinctive about privacy andwhat links diverse privacy claims.

On one count, elephants fail the tool test, for they do not make artifacts they then reuse (and obviously have not developed the kind of technology that has completely unleveled the odds in our efforts to hunt or trap or train them or encroach upon their habitat). However, between them and their environment, such as sticks to scratch between their toes and remove bugs from other areas, or twisted clumps of grass like Q-tips to clean inside their ears or whisks to swat at flies. As J. H. Williams recounts in (1950), work elephants in Asia collared with bells have been known to plug up the bells with mud so that they can go and steal bananas in the middle of the night unnoticed — a purposeful modification of someone else’s tool. Elephants dig holes for water, cover them with plugs of bark and grass, and return later to their secret stash. Elephants learn by trial and error what sorts of materials do and do not shock them in their efforts to break through electric fences — and in at least one recorded instance (described in Lawrence Anthony’s [2009]), followed the buzzing of the fence all the way around to its origin, the generator, which, having been stomped to smithereens, allowed them to untwine the fence and go their merry way.

Probably the most famous reductionist view of privacy is one fromJudith Jarvis Thomson (1975). Noting that there is little agreement onwhat privacy is, Thomson examines a number of cases that have beenthought to be violations of the right to privacy. On closer inspection,however, Thomson believes all those cases can be adequately and equallywell explained in terms of violations of property rights or rights overthe person, such as a right not to be listened to. Ultimately the rightto privacy, on Thomson's view, is merely a cluster of rights. Thoserights in the cluster are always overlapped by, and can be fullyexplained by, property rights or rights to bodily security. The rightto privacy, on her view, is “derivative” in the sense thatthere is no need to find what is common in the cluster of privacyrights. Privacy is derivative in its importance and justification,according to Thomson, as any privacy violation is better understood asthe violation of a more basic right. Numerous commentators providestrong arguments against Thomson's critique (Scanlon, 1975; Inness,1992).

Employees have the right to go to work knowing that his or, her employer will not invade their privacy.

Although I rely on such explanations myself, as I have gotten to know elephants better I have been more and more convinced that they do think, sometimes consciously, about the particular situations in which they find themselves. In the case of the young musth male, I believe that he may actually consider his options: to keep dribbling, stand with head high, and be attacked, or to cease dribbling, stand with head low, and be tolerated. In other words, the male may in fact have some control.... With dominance rank between males changing on a daily basis, a male needs to be able to adjust his behavior accordingly. From past experience he knows the characteristics of his rival’s body size, fighting ability, and how that rival normally ranks relative to him, but if his rival is in musth he also needs to assess whether he is in full musth and what sort of condition he is in. All of this information must be assimilated on a daily basis and gauged relative to his own condition. Can so complex an assessment be carried out without thinking? And I wonder whether the more parsimonious explanation wouldn’t be that they think.

Right To Privacy Essay Sample - Law Essayist

There has been protection for family life for a long time in law. But there never was until 2000 a general right to privacy; it was just a kind of piecemeal protection in that area given by a mixture of statute and common law. It was only in 2000 that we acquired a general right to privacy.

How Much Privacy Do We Really Have? - Elite Daily

Celebrities who feel they have the right to privacy in public places often muddy the waters of this issue.

She talked to that kid. She told him exactly what to do, and without any further fuss, he did. He turned out away from her and the fence and went into the deep shade of a tree twenty yards away, where he stood motionless, becoming virtually invisible. I knew exactly where he was, but could hardly find him again when I looked away. I saw her rush down to the gap and out onto the road, and as the truck appeared, she raised a huge cloud of dust, stamping and blowing, making short charges at the vehicle, frightening the crew sufficiently to get them to back off and go away.... And when the noise and confusion was at its height, the calf in camouflage made his move. He sidled over to the fence, slipped quietly through the gap, and went over to wait in the cover of the succulent forest.

Do We Have A Right To Privacy Essay | Persuasive Essay

A number of commentators defend views of privacy that link closelywith accounts stressing privacy as required for intimacy, emphasizingnot just intimacy but also more generally the importance of developingdiverse interpersonal relationships with others. Rachels (1975)acknowledges there is no single answer to the question why privacy isimportant to us, because it can be necessary to protect one's assets orinterests, or to protect one from embarrassment, or to protect oneagainst the deleterious consequences of information leaks, to name justa few. Nevertheless, he explicitly criticizes Thomson's reductionistview, and urges that privacy is a distinctive right. He basicallydefends the view that privacy is necessary to maintain a variety ofsocial relationships, not just intimate ones. Privacy accords us theability to control who knows what about us and who has access to us,and thereby allows us to vary our behavior with different people sothat we may maintain and control our various social relationships, manyof which will not be intimate. An intriguing part of Rachels' analysisof privacy is that it emphasizes ways in which privacy is not merelylimited to control over information. Our ability to control bothinformation and access to us allows us to control our relationshipswith others. Hence privacy is also connected to our behavior andactivities.

Why My Children Have No Right to Privacy - People I …

Gerstein (1978) argues as well that privacy is necessary forintimacy, and intimacy in communication and interpersonal relationshipsis required for us to fully experience our lives. Intimacy withoutintrusion or observation is required for us to have experiences withspontaneity and without shame. Shoeman (1984) endorses these views andstresses that privacy provides a way to control intimate informationabout oneself and that has many other benefits, not only forrelationships with others, but also for the development of one'spersonality and inner self. Julie Inness (1992) has identified intimacyas the defining feature of intrusions properly called privacyinvasions. Inness argues that intimacy is based not on behavior, but onmotivation. Inness believes that intimate information or activity isthat which draws its meaning from love, liking, or care. It is privacythat protects one's ability to retain intimate information and activityso that one can fulfill one's needs of loving and caring.

Our jobs have become prisons from which we don’t want to escape

A more common view has been to argue that privacy and intimacy aredeeply related. On one account, privacy is valuable because intimacywould be impossible without it (Fried, 1970; Gerety 1977; Gerstein,1978; Cohen, 2002). Fried, for example, defines privacy narrowly ascontrol over information about oneself. He extends this definition,however, arguing that privacy has intrinsic value, and is necessarilyrelated to and fundamental for one's development as an individual witha moral and social personality able to form intimate relationshipsinvolving respect, love, friendship and trust. Privacy is valuablebecause it allows one control over information about oneself, whichallows one to maintain varying degrees of intimacy. Indeed, love,friendship and trust are only possible if persons enjoy privacy andaccord it to each other. Privacy is essential for such relationshipson Fried's view, and this helps explain why a threat to privacy is athreat to our very integrity as persons. By characterizing privacy asa necessary context for love, friendship and trust, Fried is basinghis account on a moral conception of persons and their personalities,on a Kantian notion of the person with basic rights and the need todefine and pursue one's own values free from the impingement ofothers. Privacy allows one the freedom to define one's relations withothers and to define oneself. In this way, privacy is also closelyconnected with respect and self respect.