Talk:Privacy/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Privacy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Money Vs. Electronic funds
Could someone make a section on how electronic funds could be centralized by the government making rules governing the companies that run the electronic funds system (like if the US Government right now could not make rules governing peoples currency because citizens control if the hand over the physical; note and the benefits/disadvantages of paper money vs. electronic money this article already has some good stuff in it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_money I second here, this article does not specify case law, or SCOTUS case precedence for a right to privacy. I for one find this frightening. There is plenty of caselaw on Wikipedia based on the right to privacy but no fundamental discussion or enumeration of the right to privacy. Trelane 21:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Interested in Religious Privacy
Could someone please extend the section of religious privacy?
Constitutionality of Privacy Rights
This line: "Most countries have laws protecting people's privacy. In some countries this is part of their constitution, such as the United States Bill of Rights" conflicts with the later statement that the right to privacy was decided by the Supreme Court to be "implicit" in the constitution. Given the social tension in the United States over rights afforded to its citizens based on this interpretation, and the possibility that the SCOTUS could some day reverse major privacy-rights decisions, it seems far from clear to me that this issue is as settled as it is made to sound in this article and that the right to privacy is as clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rates as the first statement suggests. A significant body of thought in the United States holds that there is no costitutional right to privacy in the US Constitution, and that it's a fabrication of the judicial branch (I am not saying that I agree with this, nor am I requesting or inviting a debate on it, I honestly don't care either way). I believe that the article is misleading in its language, which implies a clear embodiment of the right to privacy in the constitution, when in fact it has been and continues to be a contentious judicial issue in the USA. Perhaps this could be reflected in the phrasing of how the United States came to legally accept the right to privacy? Something like, "Most countries have laws protecting people's privacy, and many established such rights in legal precedence," etc. I'd be glad to expand this if there's any kind of consensus that it's worth tackling.
Given the absence of any discussion (in particular, any objection), I'm going to update the statement about the constitutionality of privacy rights in the United States. --Bjsiders 15:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC) (Clarification: I'm leaving the section explaining SCOTUS activity on the matter, but removing the implication in the opening statement that privacy rights are spelled out in the US Constitution, leaving France as the sole example of this. The SCOTUS finding that the constitution implicitly spells out privacy rights is still there, that's an indisputable fact. That the constitution actually does contain privacy rights is not.)
On Privacy
Is privacy a question of culture or an intrinsic need that everyone feels?
Today, most people believe privacy deals with one's personal life; that is, the life people usually don't see, or don't know about once in the home, or out of the public eye. Most ideas about privacy tend to favour the values of individualism against the values of society, and are usually associated with the distinction between public and private life.
Privacy is as much a relationship with society and culture as it is to one's self. We will show how Mrs DelChambre, Gauchet, Hall, and Prost view notions of privacy and try to demonstrate that even though privacy is expressed differently in different cultures, it is a universal desire that doesn't depend on one's culture or social standing.
Delchambre, our expert, believes privacy in the family tends to be a more individualist experience, where fathers are the predominant parental authority regulating tensions between siblings. He says that as the economy evolved from a rigid system to a more flexible one, autonomy and competition replaced traditional social norms of inter-dependency and cooperation. And, he finds these social values squandering privacy in the home.
He tells us to be aware that even though some subjects may be considered taboo in one culture (like homosexuality), they may be accepted quite naturally in another. However, incest remains a universal forbiddance due to the negative view of the immoral conduct.
During the Middle Ages, as soon as elder sons came of age and inherited their father?s fortune, Delchambre says they often married for financial interest, with little or no love for their spouse. Eventually, less fortunate brothers relied on love speech to climb the social latter based on their moral and aesthetic qualities.
Today, similar arguments (like wealth) still exist. We live in an unstable world where love and friendship become reassuring values. Where families, once considered very strict, serve to protect against a world without compassion. A world where love becomes an illusion and friendship a game played to make life more intense.
Moreover, we base more and more of our intimate relationships on capitalist economic logic: we take advantage of others for profit and reject those with nothing to offer. The social and economic logic encroaches upon the intimate life, which eventually leads to confusion between the once autonomous spheres.
The intimate life is often exploited at work. The desire is universal. Man wants what he doesn?t have, and what he does have loses its value. In accordance with capitalist logic, people need to increase their capital of charm. The result is those who are liked by many despise those who offer themselves freely while others with little charm strive in vain to please.
According to Gauchet, the individual is afraid of personal relationships, affections. He loses contact with others or feels too close to others who are eventually considered annoying and irritating. There is loss of marks, crisis of symbolism. Privacy is a universal need because we are ever complete, always inadequate, always in search of love and compassion.
Is our notion of privacy bound to our culture or is it rather an intrinsic need?
Animals, including primates, excrete and fornicate without shame or need for privacy. At some point during human development, one can postulate (but not prove, unfortunately) that "privacy" became an issue.
The ancient Romans used co-ed public privies with no "stalls" or partitions! Our medieval ancestors slept in a common room in the castle (if they were lucky). If not, they slept in their one-room hut with all the children. In fact, this went on well through colonial times in America. These sleeping arrangements tend to have implications for sexual contact.
E.T. Hall writes in his book ?The Hidden Dimension? about the different ways people experience privacy in different cultures. He studied the relationship between two individuals in one country with similar backgrounds and then compared his findings with two individuals from two different cultures and nationalities.
According to Hall, the following four categories define existing relationships among men (ordered from closest to farest) :
- a) intimate,
- b) personal,
- c) social, and
- d) public.
These would be the result of the perception of our five senses.
He concludes there exist many differences between the notions of closeness, intrusion, and privacy in relationships between people. Much misunderstanding stems from ignorance of these differences. Hall also tackles the issue of overpopulation and urban congestion that shrinks the frontiers of public and private spaces. People no longer have the opportunity to be on their own. They don?t have anymore privacy.
Hall believes overpopulation tends to increase hostility as different urban cultures clash, which, in turn, adds to community stress and criminality. He suggests we set aside public spaces and develop city parks. He believes the environment can enhance relationships between men.
In his ?Story of Private Life?, Antoine Prost writes about how private life in France evolved in different social classes during the latter half of the twentieth century.
Prost found working and upper class lifestyles to be very different from each other. The very meaning of private life and public life differs with each social standing. Upper class families tend to have bigger houses with many rooms to separate personal intimacy in the home. Wealthy families believe privacy is a social privilege. Poorer families, on the other hand, do not have the luxury of separate rooms and share personal intimacy in close environments.
During the twentieth century, work migrated from the private to the public sphere and lead to the privatisation of domestic spaces. This social change individualised public and private life.
Today, society tends to universalise all culture and reject minority communities. The media bombards us everyday with messages that make it harder to find alternative ways of life. We seek public places to find anonymity in the crowd.
Since the notion of privacy is felt differently in different cultures, it?s important to be aware of these differences so communities can grow more tolerant and learn to respect each other. The more we learn about different cultures, the more we know about our own.
The engineer?s job is key to the notion of privacy. When designing interior space, architects strive to create more distance for personal intimacy. Since they define the physical size of privacy in the home, they need to be aware of cultural definitions of intimacy so they are better prepared to deal with diverse populations.
The same can be said for city planning. Urban development must take these issues into account and propose solutions to solve them. City planners must emphasis plans to promote harmony between cultures. They must make sure housing doesn?t become cramped due to overpopulation. Every family member is entitled to a private life. Parks must be built to allow citizens to get out of the family unit and stress of city life.
New technologies are changing notions of privacy. Helping deter criminality, surveillance systems spy us in public places. The invention of the Internet and e-mail allows more contact between people and challenges our notions of privacy.
Privacy continues to be an essential ingredient for a healthy society.
- still missing Wikipedia:Privacy or Wikipedia:Privacy Policy --Nerd 20:50 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)
There are some considerations I feel need to enter into any netrual description of privacy. One is the way the modern American view of privacy (for better or worse) differs from almost any other past or present view of privacy. Many Americans expect their privacy to be protected by external means even when their actions do little to protect the same "privacy". I can give examples if this is not clear. This being the case, one of the ways that privacy, in the American sense of the word, is lost is that it is in fact given away, often with some expectation that everyone else has a duty to give it back. [[User:CyborgTosser|CyborgTosser (Only half the battle)]] 23:31, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Rewrite
I've rewritten the article. If anyone has any feedback I'd be glad to hear it! Talrias (t | e | c) 11:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Outing
I think that outing, while sometimes done for political reasons, should go in another section. The new section should include (but not necessarily be limited to) protection from investigation of sexual activity (with outing as just one example). I'm not sure what to call it, though, and we might want to make it even broader so as to include other issues like keeping drug use private. Let me know what you think. Dave (talk)
- Maybe a new subsection for the consensual crimes, under the Privacy law section? Talrias (t | e | c) 16:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
My edit
I am making a fairly brutal edit and hopefully don't lose any sense in doing it. Some things I have dropped for now.
- The level of privacy which a person desires to have depends on the circumstances, as there are different types of privacy.
I think I know some places where this is going, but the thought isn't complete .
I removed this since you don't need to have the monopoly in order to punish. "Terrorists" often punish quite effectively with illegal force. I've put in place what I think covers all that is needed.
- Laws protecting people's privacy are classed as civil liberties.
this is not really correct; the liberties are themselves independent of the laws. Maybe "laws protecting people's privacy seen as an important way for defending people's civil liberties" ?
- Mozzerati 18:26, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
Privacy vs Security
It seems strange that this trade-off section comes first. Seems like it's a detailed concept that belongs lower down on the page, perhaps as a sub-section of "Privacy laws". —Wahoofive (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I agree, in the sense that before that there should be sections "what is privacy" (giving a definition and limitations) and "different views on privacy" (talking about different cultures and their views on privacy and different political and power groups and their views on privacy). These sections are currently partly covered in the introduction and need expanded and broken out. However, I think that the discussion of privacy and security (probably more general than the trade-off section I wrote) should immediately follow. Privacy is directly an aspect of security. Everybody's own interest is their own maximum privacy (only disclose publically that which you wish to disclose). Everybody has a direct interest in invading other people's privacy (is my neighbour building a bomb in his flat??, he may not want me to know, but I sure do). Privacy is basically defined by the ability to keep seret that which someone else doesn't want you to keep secret. That means that privacy basically is a trade-off between your wishes and someone elses wishes and that almost inevitably makes it a security issue.
- Please note also, that privacy as a security issue and security issues in privacy exist even where there is no legal framework. The work of tabloid journalists in the UK is quite often legal, but that doesn't stop the famous from using security measures to stop them. Also note that tabloid journalists have no legal "right" to access the information they do access, but do so anyway. Mozzerati 20:11, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
Commercial links
62.162.222.129 (talk · contributions) added a commercial link, which I've reverted. The page is advertising a book which discusses the issue while adding very little useful information. --Deathphoenix 20:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Internet privacy
The Internet privacy article has recently undergone some cleanup. It may benefit from further review. One-dimensional Tangent (Talk) 00:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Government privacy
Privacy is defined here as an individual or group keeping information to themselves. By this definition that group could also be a government. So is espionage also an invasion of privacy? If not, what kinds of groups are meant? DirkvdM 12:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Citation template?
This article was cited (http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=2107). I believe there is a template (i've seen it before) for this, but I couldn't find it. Caleb 04:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Active editors: Have you thought of writing...
...an article about GPS/SMS bugs? These tiny devices, hidden somewhere at your car, determine its position via GPS and transmit the coordinates via GSM's (or other standards') SMS service to your surveillant(s). They are apparently widely abused by the LEC, secret services or private snoops, thereby infringing on basic civil liberties. Also the aspect of possible counter-weapons could be discussed.
Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_Positioning_System and check out '14: GPS tracking'. Feel free to contact me directly, if you prefer.
Michael
http://worldimprover.net/EN/en8.html
Privacy in the Workplace
Deleted copyright violation, complete paste from http://conference.eicar.org/conference-old/2005/programme/SpeakersAndAbstracts.htm
I'm not sure about the other edit from the same person. -- Perspective 21:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Privacy and security trade offs
As an European I think it can be complete without : "Privacy and Liberty trade offs." "Privacy and Democracy trade offs." Ericd 01:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
"Experts" section
The "Privacy experts" sections seems arbitrary and incomplete. What are the criteria for inclusion? Not a dog 04:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Sentences don't agree with one another.
Privacy can also have free speech ramifications. In some countries privacy has been used as a tool to suppress free speech. One person's speech can sometimes be considered a violation of another's person's privacy. In various cases the US Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment trumps privacy. In Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001) Docket Number: 99-1687, US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that someone cannot be held liable in court for publishing or broadcasting intercepted contents of information, as long as that information is of public concern. Conversely, the Constitutional right to privacy is built in part on the First Amendment. I think the original writer is thinking of the fourth amendment. --Kolrobie 20:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
No mention of web privacy?
I came here expecting to be able to read about Google and DoubleClick's privacy issues, but was surprised there's no mention. --Gronky 21:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)