Too Much Info: Data Surveillance and Reasons to Favor the Control Account of the Right to Privacy

Abstract

In this paper, we argue that there is at least a pro tanto reason to favor the control account of the right to privacy over the access account of the right to privacy. This conclusion is of interest due to its relevance for contemporary discussions related to surveillance policies. We discuss several ways in which the two accounts of the right to privacy can be improved significantly by making minor adjustments to their respective definitions. We then test the improved versions of the two accounts on a test case, to see which account best explains the violation that occurs in the case. The test turns out in favor of the control account.

An Indirect Argument for the Access Theory of Privacy

“…As it happens, Jones is on vacation for several months, and does therefore not use the telephone in that time period. (Mainz and Uhrenfeldt 2020) Wiretapping is meant to elicit the intuition that a violation of the right to privacy can occur, even if no one gets access to personal information. Smith does not access personal information about Jones, because Jones happens not to use the telephone.…”

“…Presumably, in order for A to lose control, she must have it in the first place. 14 See the 'Too Much Info' cases from(Mainz and Uhrenfeldt 2020) for examples of this.15 An anonymous reviewer suggested to me that if A has Positive Control (is able to share information with others if she wants to), then A lacks Republican Control. I do not see how that follows.…”

Privacy Rights, and Why Negative Control is Not a Dead End: A Reply to Munch and Lundgren

“…In this journal, we have recently defended a novel version of the so-called 'control theory' of the moral right to privacy (Mainz and Uhrenfeldt 2020). Lauritz Munch and Björn Lundgren have independently of each other replied to our paper with a range of interesting and challenging objections (Munch 2021;Lundgren 2021a).…”

“…Because Smith does not fail his attempt, Jones loses Negative Control, and thus Smith violates Jones's right to privacy. 8 For discussion of similar cases, see the Too Much Info cases in Mainz and Uhrenfeldt (2020). and Lundgren's counterexamples without abandoning the core idea of Negative Control.…”

“…Note that the information is called f in this definition, while it was called P in the original definition fromMainz and Uhrenfeldt (2020). Note also that while the original definition concerns agents in general, this definition is concerned with individuals.5 We do think, however, that the counterexamples are underspecified in an important sense.…”