This paper will demonstrate the importance of having a right to privacy by dissecting and analyzing the arguments enclosed in Michael P. Lynch’s “Privacy Brief”; it will closely examine the injustice associated with the violation of “constitutionally-protected interests” (Lynch, 1). In addition to contextualizing Lynch’s supporting ideologies regarding the importance of having a right to privacy, I will highlight the detriments of invading privacy and supplement my argument with reasoning for why the protection of privacy is pivotal and beneficial for society. Although Lynch’s criticisms of invading privacy are linked to surveillance and the National Security Association’s (NSA) unrestricted ability to access private information, this paper …show more content…
The intrinsic harm, and the harm to liberty, are both byproducts of invading privacy; the premise of my argument is that no system of governance should enforce oversight practices which diminish individual autonomy over thought and neglect human dignity. Thus, this paper will support the notion that the right to privacy is important by closely contextualizing two of the four primary arguments outlined in Lynch’s “Privacy Brief”, which will both acknowledge the immense amount of value and importance placed on the right to informational privacy. The next section of this paper will discuss Lynch’s first argument which derives the connected value of informational privacy as an extension of the privacy of the …show more content…
The purpose of bringing up Western philosophy in relation to the “notion of personhood” is to sustain the position that our thoughts and mental activities separate one person from the rest of society, and thus makes each person indisputably unique (Lynch, 3). Lynch specifically examines the ideas of Locke and Descartes because both philosophers recognize that our thoughts are our thoughts that we should inherently have ‘privileged access’ to. To conclude this section, Lynch reemphasizes the importance of privacy by further alluding to Locke and Descartes’s philosophy which breaks down the value and purpose of individualized human thought in two ways: first in that “you access [thoughts] in a way I cannot” since one cannot know “what you feel in the same way you can” (since only we can see from inside), and the second in that you can “control what (others) know about your thoughts” since you can regulate the extent to which you decide to share (Lynch, 3). These two aspects of human thought illuminate the necessity of individuality and control, for both concepts anchor the notion that each person should possess full autonomy of their thoughts in order to genuinely think freely and be human; this example directly implies that
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
Lynch vs. Clarke (1844) was the most important case before the passage of the Fourteenth amendment dealing with this matter. It involved the discussion of whether Julia Lynch was a citizen or not. The nature of this case meant that she must either have been born a natural born citizen because she was born to her parents, that although were aliens, on U.S. soil, or that she was not a citizen at all because her parents were aliens regardless of the place of her birth that she had never made any attempt to be naturalized. The court ruled in her favor. The ruling established that under the common law of England, Julia Lunch would be considered a natural born citizen of the U.S., the common law of England formed the basis
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...
In early June 2013, Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former defense contractor who had access to NSA database while working for an intelligence consulting company, leaked classified documents reports that the National Security Agency (NSA) is recording phone calls of millions of Americans along with gathering private data and spying foreign Internet activity. The Washington Post later broke the news disclosed PRISM, a program can collect data on Internet users. The leaked documents publicly stated a vast objection. Many people were shocked by the scale of the programs, even elected representatives were unaware of the surveillance range. A nationwide debate over privacy rights have been sparked. Although supporters claim that the NSA only does its best to protect the United States from terrorists as well as respecting Americans' rights and privacy, many civil rights advocates feel that the government failed to be clear about the limit of the surveillance programs, threatening Americans' civil...
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 (Pri-va-cy) n.1.the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people. Americans fear that technological progress will destroy the concept of privy. The first known use of wiretap was in 1948. It’s no secret that the government watches individuals on a daily bases. According to the constitution, the Fourth Amendment serves to protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Unreasonable is the word that tips the balance On one side is the intrusion on individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights and the other side is legitimate government interests, such as public safety. What we consider reasonable by law, the government might not think so. The word ‘privacy’ seems to be non-existent today in the 21st century; the use and advances of technology have deprived us of our privacy and given the government the authority to wiretap and or intervene in our lives. Our natural rights we’ve strived for since the foundation of this nation are being slashed down left to right when we let the government do as they wish. The government should not be given the authority to intervene without a reasonable cause and or consent of the individual
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...
Most people concerned about the privacy implications of government surveillance aren’t arguing for no[sic] surveillance and absolute privacy. They’d be fine giving up some privacy as long as appropriate controls, limitations, oversight and accountability mechanisms were in place. ”(“5 Myths about Privacy”). The fight for privacy rights is by no means a recent conflict.
As said by Eric Hughes, "Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world. " 2 As written by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in 1928, the right most valued by the American people was "the right to be left alone". " 3 Previously it took a lot of equipment to monitor a person's actions, but now with technology's development and advancement all it requires is a computer. And there are many mediums which can be monitored, such as telephones, email, voice mail, and computers.4 People's rights are protected by many laws, but in private businesses there are few laws protecting an individual's rights.
...onal privacy dead?” brings up many other questions along with it. But there is no doubt that the government is doing all of what they are doing for safety reasons. They claim to want to make the United States as safe as possible, and this has proved to ring true in many situations. But now the inevitable new question becomes: How far is too far? Is safety more important than privacy? To know these answers, one must ask themselves and know their own opinion on the situation. But whatever their answers may be, and despite the multiple other questions that are brought up along with the topic of personal privacy, there is still one thing that is known for sure: personal privacy is dead. And unless the use of technology becomes less critical to the United States, personal privacy will always be dead. The bigger the role technology has; the less personal privacy there is.
As society has progressed, there have been many new innovative and unbelievable developments in almost all aspects of life that have ultimately created an impact. More specifically, advancements in technology have rather had a much larger and intense impact on society as it continues to grow. Technology has allowed for many great and useful applications that has made life much easier and convenient. However, many aspects of technology have given a rise to a number of social and ethical issues, causing numerous debates and concerns. One of the more prominent concerns deals with the issue of privacy rights.
The privacy of the individual is the most important right. Without privacy, the democratic system that we know would not exist. Privacy is one of the fundamental values on which our country was founded. There are exceptions to privacy rights that are created by the need for defense and security.
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.
Americans’ personal privacy is being to be ruined by the rise of four different types of surveillance system. The four are: federal government agencies; state and local law enforcement entities; telecoms, web sites and Internet “apps” companies; and private data aggregators .The right to privacy is not derived from any source; however the Declaration of Human Rights states that "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor attacks upon his honor or reputation"(Stone 348). The right to protection is also secured by the Privacy Act of 1974 and found through the in the first, fourth and fifth amendments of the United States Constitution.
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.