Are Traditional Definitions of Privacy Still Valid with 21st Century

1. Introduction

The question that I have selected for my individual assignment is this:

Are traditional definitions of privacy still valid with 21st Century technology?

For me, privacy is an interesting topic to write about as even without any research, I can tell that the topic is extremely intricate. In my assignment, I begin by talking about the history of privacy, after which I discuss how the meaning of privacy has developed by looking at the theories and definitions. After this, I talk about how the advent of technology and the Internet has shaped our world and how we look at privacy because of it. I finish my essay by answering the question of whether the traditional definitions of privacy still hold true, by analysing the various factors which have gone into the evolvement of the concept of privacy.

1.1. The beginnings

Privacy has its roots in the world's religion and culture; the Holy Quran states "Do not spy on one another" (Hayat, 2007) and references are made in Biblical and Jewish law. Prior to the augmentation of governmental structures, laws and legality, privacy was mostly enshrined within the concept of "a man's right to be left alone, free from physical harm" (Gofton, 2011). During those times, laws tended to bring people protection from physical interference with life and property (Brandeis and Warren, 1890). The complexities and intricacies of privacy increased, along with freedom and the ascent of democracy. The seeds sown by the French Revolution in 1789 were beginning to take shape and there was growing interest in the notion of a democratic government across the continent of Europe. Democracy brought along waves of change and forced people to recognise the various rights we, as humans are entitled to such as protection against body harm, nuisance and slander too and even though there were no laws in the early days regarding the privacy and respect regarding a man's intellect and thoughts, gradually the recognition widened (Brandeis and Warren, 1890). The law also shaped many of the definitions of privacy that we know today and as Brandeis and Warren put it in their classic work on privacy, this development of the law was inevitable (1890, p.2).

1.2. Definitions

While the word privacy has an official dictionary definition which says "a state in which one is not observed or disturbed by other people" (Oxford Dictionaries Online), we as people tend to interpret it in the context of our thoughts and situations. As Solove noted (2006, p.477) privacy cannot be articulated and is "too vague a concept". At its core, privacy is a fundamental human right - we need privacy to "keep a domain around us, which includes all those things... body, home, thoughts, feelings, secrets and identity" (Yael Onn, et al., 2005) - but, as these days, the definition of the word is often "fused with data protection" (Privacy & Human Rights, 2004), it remains to be a word without a fixed definition.

As Herman Tavani (2007 p.1) observed, it is difficult to find an exact definition for privacy, however, if we are to confront the constant threat propounded by computers and technology, it is a necessity to frame a definition for privacy. Tavani delves into the topic of privacy by examining philosophical privacy theories. According to him, some privacy theories are descriptive, while others are normative, or based on rights (Tavani, 2007). Normative frameworks concentrate on linking privacy with confidentially, which can be breached whereas descriptive frameworks suggest that privacy is diminished when it accessed by others. Tavani organises privacy theories into four categories: the non-intrusion, seclusion, control and limitation.

The non-intrusion theory views privacy as either being let alone (Brandeis and Warren, 1890), or being free from government intrusion. An interesting point here is how Tavani distinguishes between liberty and privacy by stating that the liberty to disclose certain information to certain individuals is a form of privacy, and then states that the non-intrusion theory does not help us explain the reason the two concepts are different. The seclusion theory of privacy "is identified with being alone" (Tavani, 2007), it sits under the descriptive framework and "avoids confusing privacy and liberty" (Tavani, 2007). The seclusion theory suggests "that the more alone one is, the more privacy one has" (Tavani, 2007), which means that it links privacy to solitude. Tavani remarks that the non-intrusion and seclusion theories are regarding the physical access to a person, rather than the intellectual property, feelings and thoughts. This is why the two theories are sometimes called the accessibility theories.

Information privacy is another arena, quite different to accessibility privacy. Alan Westin describes privacy as the ability to determine for ourselves when, how, and to what extent information about us is communicated to others (Westin, 1967). In addition, the limitation and control theories put forward by Herman Tavani take into account privacy of information. By separating privacy from liberty and solitude, the control theory recognises the role of choice which an individual has (Tavani, 2007). However, here too there is a certain ambiguity over the kind of information one has control over and exactly how much control one can command. The limitation theory supports privacy by limiting the access to information in certain contexts (Tavani, 2007). This theory acknowledges the different contexts and settings within which one might need to restrict information. The limitation theory is also different than the rest in that it differentiates privacy from freedom, liberty and solitude. However, as with the other theories, there are flaws with this theory too; namely, the theory tends to "underestimate the role of control or choice that is also required in one's having privacy" (Tavani, 2007).

Another privacy theory is the restricted access/limited control theory (RALC), which is an amalgamation of the control and limitation structures (Tavani, 2007) as these are more relevant when it comes to technology and information privacy. According to Isaac Dupont, the RALC theory is "the best philoshophical theory of privacy in respect to the new problems created by the network society" (Textual Metanoia, 2007). The RALC theory differentiates between what is necessary in order to have privacy, in a descriptive context and a right to privacy. While privacy is defined has been defined in terms of protection and restricted access, control also plays a role in managing privacy (Tavani, 2007).