What Is the Right to Privacy?

Marmor, Andrei

doi:10.1111/papa.12040

Cited by 68 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A person who deliberately gains access to information that the other person wants to keep secret is violating the other person's autonomy through information control. We see the emphasis on privacy as control over information in, for instance, Marmor's description of privacy as 'grounded in people's interest in having a reasonable measure of control over the ways in which they can present themselves to others' (Marmor 2015). Autonomy, however, does not entail an exhaustive description of privacy.…”

Section: The Individual Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This characteristic of privacy is important not only at an institutional level. In people's private lives the creation and maintenance of different kinds of relationships is possible only when subtle differences in patterns of social behaviour and social expectations are recognized (Rachels 1984, Marmor 2015. Remarkably, this subtlety becomes clearest in examples of intrusions of privacy in unoccupied public places.…”

Section: The Social Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Privacy in the digital age: comparing and contrasting individual versus social approaches towards privacy

Becker

2019

Ethics Inf Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper takes as a starting point a recent development in privacy-debates: the emphasis on social and institutional environments in the definition and the defence of privacy. Recognizing the merits of this approach I supplement it in two respects. First, an analysis of the relation between privacy and autonomy teaches that in the digital age more than ever individual autonomy is threatened. The striking contrast between on the one hand offline vocabulary, where autonomy and individual decision making prevail, and on the other online practices is a challenge that cannot be met in a social approach. Secondly, I elucidate the background of the social approach. Its importance is not exclusively related to the digital age. In public life we regularly face privacy-moments, when in a small distinguished social domain few people are commonly involved in common experiences. In the digital age the contextual integrity model of Helen Nissenbaum has become very influential. However this model has some problems. Nissenbaum refers to a variety of sources and uses several terms to explain the normativity in her model. The notion 'context' is not specific and faces the reproach of conservatism. We elaborate on the most promising suggestion: an elaboration on the notion 'goods' as it can be found in the works of Michael Walzer and Alisdair Macintyre. Developing criteria for defining a normative framework requires making explicit the substantive goods that are at stake in a context, and take them as the starting point for decisions about the flow of information. Doing so delivers stronger and more specific orientations that are indispensible in discussions about digital privacy.

show abstract

Section: The Individual Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Social Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Privacy in the digital age: comparing and contrasting individual versus social approaches towards privacy

Becker

2019

Ethics Inf Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is at least one more way to understand the claim that victims enjoy an ownership right over their stories: this right is fundamentally a right to privacy. This interpretation is appealing if, as Andrei Marmor () suggests, we assume a general right to privacy grounded in people's interest in having a reasonable measure of control over the ways in which they can present themselves (and what is theirs) to others.…”

Section: Ownership Rights To Personal Storiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Victims, Their Stories, and Our Rights

Bufacchi

2018

Metaphilosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diana Meyers argues that breaking the silence of victims and attending to their stories are necessary steps towards realizing human rights. Yet using highly personal victims stories to promote human rights raises significant moral concerns, hence Meyers suggests that before victims stories can be accessed and used, it is morally imperative that requirements of informed consent and nonretraumatization are secured. This article argues that while Meyers proviso is important, and necessary, it may not be sufficient. First, one potential problem with seeking to secure "informed consent" is that one has to ask for the consent, and in the act of asking one is potentially retraumatizing the victim. Secondly, the assumption that victims have ownership right over their stories, which is a key premise in Meyerss argument, is much more problematic than may appear.

show abstract

“…Aun así, la literatura, que en el caso de los filósofos despega a partir del final de los sesenta, es casi inabarcable. Sin embargo, la controversia acerca de qué entendemos por derecho a la privacidad (o a la intimidad) y por la propia privacidad sigue abierta, de igual forma que se ha recrudecido la discusión normativa acerca del valor de la privacidad y por qué debería importarnos (Marmor 2015). Hay múltiples testimonios al respecto.…”

Section: El Caos De La Privacidadunclassified

Sobre el concepto de privacidad: la relación entre privacidad e intimidad

Toscano

2017

Isegoría

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMEN. El derecho a la privacidad está en el centro de muchos de los debates públicos actuales. Sin embargo, a pesar de la extensa literatura filosófica y jurídica sobre el tema, no contamos con una explicación adecuada del sentido y del valor de la privacidad. Esta falta de acuerdo sobre cuestiones conceptuales y normativas ha llevado a algún autor a hablar del 'caos de la privacidad'. Este artículo se centra en la exploración conceptual de la privacidad. Para ello, en primer lugar, consideraré cómo el derecho a la privacidad fue formulado por primera vez en el célebre artículo de Warren y Brandeis. Segundo, en la medida en que el derecho a la privacidad es sistemáticamente traducido en español como 'derecho a la intimidad', resulta crucial analizar con cuidado la confusa relación entre intimidad y privacidad. Con este fin, en las dos últimas secciones del trabajo discutiré algunas explicaciones de cómo trazar la distinción entre ambas nociones y cómo entender su intrincada relación.Palabras clave: Privacidad; intimidad; autonomía; aislamiento ABSTRACT. The right to privacy is at the heart of many contemporary public controversies. However, despite the vast philosophical and legal literature on the subject, we do not have a proper account of the meaning and value of privacy. This lack of agreement on conceptual and normative issues has led some author to talk about the 'chaos of privacy'. This article is focused on the conceptual exploration of privacy. First, I will consider how the right to privacy was first formulated in the classic article by Warren and Brandeis. Secondly, as in Spanish the right to privacy is regularly translated by 'derecho a la intimidad' it is crucial to analyze carefully the confused relation between intimacy and privacy. To this purpose I will discuss in the last two sections some explanations about how to draw the distinc-533

show abstract

What Is the Right to Privacy?

Cited by 68 publications

References 0 publications

Privacy in the digital age: comparing and contrasting individual versus social approaches towards privacy

Privacy in the digital age: comparing and contrasting individual versus social approaches towards privacy

Victims, Their Stories, and Our Rights

Sobre el concepto de privacidad: la relación entre privacidad e intimidad

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About