If all citizens were to fully exercise their right to privacy, ..

With the legal groundwork laid in these two cases dealing with parents' childrearing rights, it was a relatively short step from the application of these ideas about privacy to other issues involving marriage. In 1965, in , the Supreme Court was asked to consider a Connecticut law that forbade discussion, distribution, and the use of contraceptives. The case was prompted by the arrest of the director of a Planned Parenthood clinic for providing contraceptive literature and counseling.

The ALA has affirmed a right to privacy since 1939

and courts have determined a right to privacy in certain areas.
Photo provided by
Flickr

to issue privacy regulations governing ..

This essay will discuss all of these topics, namely, (1) thehistorical roots of the concept of privacy, including the developmentof privacy protection in tort and constitutional law, and thephilosophical responses that privacy is merely reducible to otherinterests or is a coherent concept with fundamental value, (2) thecritiques of privacy as a right, (3) the wide array of philosophicaldefinitions or defenses of privacy as a concept, providing alternativeviews on the meaning and value of privacy (and whether or not it isculturally relative), as well as (4) the challenges to privacy posedin an age of technological advance. Overall, most writers defend thevalue of privacy protection despite the difficulties inherent in itsdefinition and its potential use to shield abuse. A contemporarycollection of essays on privacy provides strong evidence to supportthis point (Paul et al., 2000). The contributing authorsexamine various aspects of the right to privacy and its role in moralphilosophy, legal theory, and public policy. They also addressjustifications and foundational arguments for privacy rights.

11 Common Workplace Privacy Issues (and 4 Common …

Despite the well-established protection of tort privacy to controlinformation about oneself in the courts, and the almost universalacceptance of the value of informational privacy by philosophers andthe populace, Abraham L. Newman (2008) and others have persuasivelyargued that the United States (US), and multiple countries in Asia, hasdeveloped a limited system of privacy protection that focuses onself-regulation within industry and government so that personalinformation is often readily available. In contrast, the EuropeanUnion (EU) and others have adopted an alternative vision highlightingconsumer protection and individual privacy against the economicinterests of firms and public officials. This latter modeldeveloped from comprehensive rules about data privacy enacted in theEU’s Data Protection Directive in 1995, now adopted in some formby all 27 EU nations. European-style privacy protectionregulations have spread rapidly across the industrial world, with theUnited States as a major exception, and have transformed and led theglobal privacy debate, while the US has relied on a more laissez-fairementality about protection of personal information and a patchwork ofprivacy guidelines. This patchwork includes privacy regulationson student records, video rentals, the Children’s Online PrivacyProtection Act (COPPA, 2000), the Health Insurance Portability andAccountability Act (HIPPA, 2006) and more.

The right to privacy is an intrinsic American value.
Photo provided by
Pexels

We encourage our members to be thoughtful about what is shared

Gerstein (1978) argues as well that privacy is necessary forintimacy, and intimacy in communication and interpersonal relationshipsis required for us to fully experience our lives. Intimacy withoutintrusion or observation is required for us to have experiences withspontaneity and without shame. Shoeman (1984) endorses these views andstresses that privacy provides a way to control intimate informationabout oneself and that has many other benefits, not only forrelationships with others, but also for the development of one’spersonality and inner self. Julie Inness (1992) has identified intimacyas the defining feature of intrusions properly called privacyinvasions. Inness argues that intimacy is based not on behavior, but onmotivation. She believes that intimate information or activity isthat which draws its meaning from love, liking, or care. It is privacythat protects one’s ability to retain intimate information and activityso that one can fulfill one’s needs of loving and caring.

Criticism of Google - Wikipedia

Not every justice agreed with the specifics within Douglas's opinion. Several acknowledged that there was a right to marital privacy, but they did not see Douglas's "penumbras" sitting along the edges of the Constitution. Justice Arthur Goldberg said the right was one of those left unspecified and yet protected by the Ninth Amendment. Justice White argued that it was one of the liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Yet, while their legal reasoning was different, they accepted the existence of a constitutionally protected right to privacy.

The Real Privacy Problem - MIT Technology Review

For some cases in the clash between privacy and advancingtechnologies, it is possible to make a compelling argument foroverriding the privacy intrusions. Drug and alcohol tests for airlinepilots on the job seem completely justifiable in the name of publicsafety, for example. With the development of new and moresophisticated technology, however, recent work on privacy is examiningthe ways in which respect for privacy can be balanced with justifiableuses of emerging technology (Agre and Rotenberg, 1997; Austin, 2003;Brin, 1998; Etzioni, 1999, and Ethics and InformationTechnology, 6, 1, 2004). Daniel Solove (2006) takes seriously thecriticism that privacy suffers from an embarrassment of meanings andthe concern that new technologies have given rise to a panoply of newprivacy harms. He then endeavors to guide the law toward a morecoherent understanding of privacy, by developing a taxonomy toidentify a wide range of privacy problems comprehensively andcompletely. Moore argues that privacy claims should carry more weightwhen in conflict with other social values and interests. For example,he defends the view that employee agreements that undermine employeeprivacy should be viewed with suspicion, and he argues that laws andlegislation prohibiting the genetic modification of humans willunjustifiably trample individual privacy rights (Moore, 2000). He alsodefends the view that free speech and expression should not be viewedas more important than privacy (Moore, 1998). Clearly, in the wake ofthe terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the literature on privacyincreasingly focuses on how to balance privacy concerns with the needfor public safety in an age of terrorism. Moore (2000) argues thatviews which trade privacy for security typically strike the wrongbalance and in many cases undermine both (Moore, 2000). Etzioni andMarsh (2003) provide a varied collection of essays on balancing rightsand public safety after 9/11, highlighting views about where thegovernment will need to expand its authority in fighting the waragainst terrorism, and where it risks overreaching itsauthority. Revisions to the U.S. Patriot Act and the extent to whichthere have been increases in surreptitious electronic surveillancewithout court-issued warrants in violation of the Foreign IntelligenceSurveillance Act (FISA) will lead to further debates on the importanceof privacy protection versus governmental power post 9/11. A morerecent example is Edward Snowden’s unauthorized acquisition ofprivileged National Security Agency (NSA) information and his furtherbreach of sharing the information without permission. (Some view himas a hero, others as a traitor.) Although the government needs strongpowers to protect its citizens, the executive branch also needs toprovide a strong voice on behalf of civil liberties and individualrights, including privacy.