Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
In this section we explore what the word “privacy” means, survey some positive and
negative consequences of granting people privacy, and discuss whether privacy is a
natural right, like the right to life.
Philosophers struggle to define privacy. Discussions about privacy revolve around the
notion of
access
, where access means either physical proximity to a person or knowledge
about that person. There is a tug-of-war between the desires, rights, and responsibilities
of a person who wants to restrict access to himself, and the desires, rights, and responsi-
bilities of outsiders to gain access.
From the point of view of an individual seeking to restrict access, privacy is a “zone
of inaccessibility” that surrounds a person [2]. You have privacy to the extent that you
can control who is allowed into your zone of inaccessibility. For example, you exercise
your privacy when you lock the door behind you when using the toilet. You also exercise
your privacy when you choose not to tell the clerk at the health club your Social Security
number. However, privacy is not the same thing as being alone. Two people can have
a private relationship. It might be a physical relationship, in which each person lets
the other person become physically close while excluding others, or it might be an
intellectual relationship, in which they exchange letters containing private thoughts.
When we look at privacy from the point of view of outsiders seeking access, the
discussion revolves around where to draw the line between what is private and what
is public (known to all). Stepping over this line and violating someone's privacy is an
affront to that person's dignity [3]. You violate someone's privacy when you treat him or
her as a means to an end. Put another way, some things ought not to be known. Suppose
a friend invites you to see a cool movie trailer available on the Web. You follow him into
the computer lab. He sits down at an available computer and begins to type in his login
name and password. While it is his responsibility to keep his password confidential, it
is also generally accepted that you ought to avert your eyes when someone is typing in
their password. Another person's password is not something that you should know.
On the other hand, society can be harmed if individuals have too much privacy.
Suppose a group of wealthy people of the same racial, ethnic, and religious background
forms a private club. The members of the club share information with each other that
is not available to the general public. If the club facilitates business deals among its
members, it may give them an unfair advantage over others in the community who are
just as capable of fulfilling the contracts. In this way, privacy can encourage social and
economic inequities, and the public at large may benefit if the group had less privacy (or
its membership were more diverse).
Here is another example of a public/private conflict, but this one focuses on the
privacy of an individual. Most of us distinguish between a person's “private life” (what
they do at home) and their “public life” (what they do at work). In general, we may agree
that people have the right to keep outsiders from knowing what they do away from work.
However, suppose a journalist learns that a wealthy candidate for high public office has
