When we talk about Privacy nowadays what comes into our minds is data privacy but what most people know about data privacy is only contextualized into me as a person and what we post online.
Let us define first what is privacy. It has been suggested that privacy can be divided into four different aspects that is related to a human or juridical person. These are:
- Territorial – which concerns the setting of limits on intrusion into one’s own property such as your house, car and other environments this also includes video surveillance, ID checks on subdivision and Trespassing
- Bodily – which concerns the protection of people’s physical selves against invasive procedures such as drug testing, cavity searches and other medical procedures that may violate privacy
- Information – this is otherwise known as data privacy and protection; it involves the establishment of policies, process and procedures on the governance of corporation or otherwise known as data controllers and processors on collection, use, storage, handling, retention, destroying and sharing of personal data such as credit information, and medical and government records.
- Communication – covers the security and privacy of communication channels and devices such as radio frequency – include telephone and media, mails – manual and electronic, telephone, and internet communication; it also involves directives on devices on internet of everything such IOT devices and Internet Protocols and other forms of communication
So, when we talk about Privacy we need to contextualized it. Privacy is not just about Data Privacy and the Data Privacy Act all over the world can only be classified or categorized into two(2) aspects which are Information and Communication.
It is well to note that Privacy has been a battle cry for oppression and since the 1600s in Europe that can be manifested in the Common Law of the United Kingdom and the landmark case in 1928 over territorial and communication privacy that Justice Louis Brandeis dissented on the case of Olmstead vs the US Government and he said that:
“The right to be let alone – the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men”
[Brandeis J, dissenting in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)]
The case revolved around the prosecution of Roy Olmstead for attempting to smuggle and sell alcohol after suspecting Olmstead for years the government gathered evidence by wiretapping his office. Olmstead argued that the police had violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights since the police during that time didn’t obtained a warrant.
During that time wiretapping was legal and the Supreme Court had a 5-4 decision in favor of the US Government. The case had become a landmark case not because of the decision but because of the dissent of Justice Brandeis. He wrote an influential dissent that became the foundation for future privacy.
In it, he attacked the proposition that the government had the power to wiretap phones without warrant, arguing that there is no difference between listening to a phone call and reading a sealed letter. Brandeis argued that the Founders had “conferred against the government, the right to be let alone – the most comprehensive of rights and the right most favored by civilized men.” Furthermore Brandeis advanced the idea that the ‘unclean hands’ principle, which is the idea that courts should not aid a plaintiff who has acted unethically with regards to the subject of the case, applies to the federal government. The government should not violate the laws of states to gather evidence (wiretapping was illegal in many states, including Washington) and then use that evidence to prosecute people.
After four decades in the 1967 Katz vs U.S. case the Brandeis dissent was widely cited and the Supreme Court has overturned the Olmstead ruling that warrants were in fact required to wiretapping, with Brandeis’ dissent held as a primary influence. The Katz decision can be compared to the breaking of the Berlin wall that opened privacy as a constitutional right and has so much implications from right to live, abortion rights, press freedom, information / data privacy and now even communication privacy that deals on a connected world on the internet of everything.
Below are the chronological history from the Harvard Law Review of the “Right to Privacy” of Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis.
The Scope of Privacy
As Professor Roger Clarke said Privacy is important from a number of different perspective:
Psychologically, people need private space. This applies in public as well as behind closed doors and drawn curtains. We need to be able to glance around, judge whether the people in the vicinity are a threat, and then perform actions that are potentially embarrassing, such as breaking wind, and jumping for joy.
- Sociologically, people need to be free to behave, and to associate with others, subject to broad social mores, but without the continual threat of being observed. Otherwise we reduce ourselves to the appalling, inhuman, constrained context that was imposed on people in countries behind the Iron Curtain and the Bamboo Curtain.
- Economically, people need to be free to innovate. International competition is fierce, and countries with high labor-costs need to be clever if they want to sustain their standard-of-living. And cleverness has to be continually reinvented. But the chilling effect that surveillance brings with it stifles innovation. All innovators are, by definition, ‘deviant’ from the norms of the time, and they are both at risk, and perceive themselves to be at risk, if they lack private space in which to experiment.
- Politically, people need to be free to think, and argue, and act. Surveillance chills behavior and speech, and undermines democracy.
But there is a tangent for the four scope of privacy this is Philosophical. The Philosophy of Privacy goes and dives into the concept dignity and integrity. When we talk about integrity it comes from a Latin word which is “INTEGRA” in plain English it is INTEGER. An integer is always whole with no fractions so the Philosophy of Privacy is really about ETHICS, DIGNITY and INTEGRITY.