I agree that Privacy depends on the context. However, I disagree that there are no common core characteristics of the right of privacy. There are aspects of what is "private" that I believe have been mostly universal like privacy in the home and within intimacy, as well as privacy in one's beliefs. Whether established by a world wide social contract or not, certain aspects of a person's privacy are fairly universal, and should be protected as such. A universal human right of privacy. Where that right extends, ends, or when public good trumps the right of privacy? That needs be a different conversation.
I believe that there are definitely common core characteristics of privacy. Privacy is something that everyone in the world wants and for this there has to be some set beliefs. Someones sexual life inside of their home is one of these beliefs. No one wants what they do in the bedroom to be spilled out in front of everyone. This is why the home is such a sacred, private place. It has the harshest laws protecting It for a reason. I do believe certain situations make the context extremely important to the question of privacy, however this doesn't mean there can't be core characteristics.
No, I do not agree with the statement. I think the statement actually is in disagreement with itself both when it says that privacy depends on context and when it calls privacy a right, because, to me, both of those features are common core characteristics of privacy. I do think that privacy depends on context, and that not all privacy issues have the same characteristics. However, I agree with Daniel J. Solve in "'I've Got Nothing To Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy" when he described privacy issues as having a set of "family resemblances" that appear in different combinations depending on the situation.
I agree on the first half of the statement: “Privacy depends on the context.” As we had previously discussed in class last week, we can certainly attribute Privacy to having different meaning in each context. As the definition of privacy may be consider ambiguous in nature, I believe there are certain characteristics that may be associated with privacy that may vary in context. As members of society we have certain expectations of privacy, while that may differ to each individual, privacy continues to maintain characteristics which we identify with.
I partially agree with this statement. I believe that privacy does largely depend on the context, but there are certain aspects of privacy that are commonly desired by society. A good example of this is having control over a zone of intimacy. What goes on in one's home is something that should remain private to whatever extent the individual wishes. So while privacy is contextual, there are certain aspects that should remain consistent in any privacy debate.
No. I think privacy can often differ in its extremeness or application, but it holds the same essence regardless of the context. At its core, privacy is the right to have control over oneself or one's own possessions (items, words, thoughts, etc.), like we learned in our week one readings. With that being said, privacy is not something that applies equally to everything in every circumstance. Privacy is a spectrum; for example, many different people prefer different levels of privacy, meaning they fall at different points on that spectrum. So while the level or application might differ contextually, there are definitely core characteristics of privacy in virtually every instance.
I agree to an extent with the statement. Privacy depends on context, as expectations of privacy and protections for privacy vary based on location and situational context. For example, it's reasonable to expect privacy within the home and that expectation is protected. However, it is unreasonable (especially in a digital age) to expect that same privacy to extend beyond the home into the public sphere. However, I believe that all rights to privacy should exist as a way to protect against personal invasion. As others have mentioned, privacy within the home should almost always be protected.
I disagree with the statement. I think that the context of personal privacy is always the same just on different mediums such as the internet, freedom from view in your own home, or your different privacy rights while in public. You can always hold your right to privacy, but every time that you put your information out in to the world you are trading away your privacy in return for personal gain. For example, when you sign up for Facebook or any other social media you are trading away your private personal information in return for a free service that allows you to connect with your friends. The website now has a right to view or use anything you put on their domain due to this exchange. It is the same as your right to privacy in the home that is given to you by the government. They grant you your privacy in return for the promise that you won't do anything illegal while inside your home. However, if they believe that you are breaking your part of they deal they are legally allowed to release their end of the contract to obtain a warrant to search your home.
No, there certainly are common characteristics to the right of privacy irrespective of the context. Although policy makers may struggle to define privacy, all privacy rights are maintained with the same intent of protecting individuals from unwanted scrutiny resulting from the availability of personal information. From the readings, in the case of Katz v. United States, it was determined that “the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.” This idea, which lead to the adoption of the reasonable expectation of privacy test, can be seen as a core characteristic of the right to privacy.
I disagree with that statement, “Privacy depends on the context”. Privacy is always a collection of a person’s private inner-moments and their right to choose the degree to which they share that information. When you choose to publish an open blog on the internet, you are agreeing to sharing that post with whomever comes across it, but if you have a private blog, you have the right to assume that no others can see that without your say so. Similarly, in the comfort of your own home, you have the right to believe that your activities are private and unobserved. In any different context, from internet use to privacy at home, the common core of privacy remains the same, and as do general privacy understandings and policies.
No, I disagree with the statement. Although the statement is correct in that privacy depends on the context; it is wrong in stating that "there are no common core characteristics of the right of privacy." As seen in the article by Daniel J. Solove, privacy can be characterized by family resemblances tying together specific privacy issues. Though the aforementioned idea may be met with some disagreement, a singular characteristic of the right of privacy can always be found in it's most narrowed definition which is ones right to keep their intimate information confidential.
No, I disagree with the idea that there are no core characteristics to the right of privacy. We can determine multiple characteristics that can be used to define privacy. If we were to focus on only one of these elements, we would make the definition of privacy too broad or too specific. Elements in certain scenarios of privacy should be compared to other scenarios in order to find similarities, and thus core characteristics. Context is still incredibly important when defining privacy, as some scenarios may lack certain characteristics of privacy but contains others. Knowing the context of these scenarios will help us with our continued definition of privacy.
The right to privacy does not depend on the context of the situation because there are no core characteristics of it. Perhaps in an ideal society, things like the Apple product master-key could exist and be used when presented with a search warrant, but unfortunately, it is those in positions of power who may elect that something is "necessary" nor not. Additionally, creating such a back door would violate the privacy of every apple product user if it were to fall into the wrong hands. For example, back in 1999, a group called Hackers Unite discovered Microsoft's master password for all Hotmail accounts. Thankfully, the hackers only did so to demonstrate both Microsoft's universality and their poor security at the time. However, an ideal society free from abuses would benefit greatly from utilizing a situation's context to protect those with good intent (the little girl in the talking Barbie story) while allowing law enforcement access to necessary information given it wouldn't be fraught with abuse.
I agree that Privacy depends on the context. However, I disagree that there are no common core characteristics of the right of privacy. There are aspects of what is "private" that I believe have been mostly universal like privacy in the home and within intimacy, as well as privacy in one's beliefs. Whether established by a world wide social contract or not, certain aspects of a person's privacy are fairly universal, and should be protected as such. A universal human right of privacy. Where that right extends, ends, or when public good trumps the right of privacy? That needs be a different conversation.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there are definitely common core characteristics of privacy. Privacy is something that everyone in the world wants and for this there has to be some set beliefs. Someones sexual life inside of their home is one of these beliefs. No one wants what they do in the bedroom to be spilled out in front of everyone. This is why the home is such a sacred, private place. It has the harshest laws protecting It for a reason. I do believe certain situations make the context extremely important to the question of privacy, however this doesn't mean there can't be core characteristics.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not agree with the statement. I think the statement actually is in disagreement with itself both when it says that privacy depends on context and when it calls privacy a right, because, to me, both of those features are common core characteristics of privacy. I do think that privacy depends on context, and that not all privacy issues have the same characteristics. However, I agree with Daniel J. Solve in "'I've Got Nothing To Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy" when he described privacy issues as having a set of "family resemblances" that appear in different combinations depending on the situation.
ReplyDeleteI agree on the first half of the statement: “Privacy depends on the context.” As we had previously discussed in class last week, we can certainly attribute Privacy to having different meaning in each context. As the definition of privacy may be consider ambiguous in nature, I believe there are certain characteristics that may be associated with privacy that may vary in context. As members of society we have certain expectations of privacy, while that may differ to each individual, privacy continues to maintain characteristics which we identify with.
ReplyDeleteI partially agree with this statement. I believe that privacy does largely depend on the context, but there are certain aspects of privacy that are commonly desired by society. A good example of this is having control over a zone of intimacy. What goes on in one's home is something that should remain private to whatever extent the individual wishes. So while privacy is contextual, there are certain aspects that should remain consistent in any privacy debate.
ReplyDeleteNo. I think privacy can often differ in its extremeness or application, but it holds the same essence regardless of the context. At its core, privacy is the right to have control over oneself or one's own possessions (items, words, thoughts, etc.), like we learned in our week one readings. With that being said, privacy is not something that applies equally to everything in every circumstance. Privacy is a spectrum; for example, many different people prefer different levels of privacy, meaning they fall at different points on that spectrum. So while the level or application might differ contextually, there are definitely core characteristics of privacy in virtually every instance.
ReplyDeleteI agree to an extent with the statement. Privacy depends on context, as expectations of privacy and protections for privacy vary based on location and situational context. For example, it's reasonable to expect privacy within the home and that expectation is protected. However, it is unreasonable (especially in a digital age) to expect that same privacy to extend beyond the home into the public sphere. However, I believe that all rights to privacy should exist as a way to protect against personal invasion. As others have mentioned, privacy within the home should almost always be protected.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the statement. I think that the context of personal privacy is always the same just on different mediums such as the internet, freedom from view in your own home, or your different privacy rights while in public. You can always hold your right to privacy, but every time that you put your information out in to the world you are trading away your privacy in return for personal gain. For example, when you sign up for Facebook or any other social media you are trading away your private personal information in return for a free service that allows you to connect with your friends. The website now has a right to view or use anything you put on their domain due to this exchange. It is the same as your right to privacy in the home that is given to you by the government. They grant you your privacy in return for the promise that you won't do anything illegal while inside your home. However, if they believe that you are breaking your part of they deal they are legally allowed to release their end of the contract to obtain a warrant to search your home.
ReplyDeleteNo, there certainly are common characteristics to the right of privacy irrespective of the context. Although policy makers may struggle to define privacy, all privacy rights are maintained with the same intent of protecting individuals from unwanted scrutiny resulting from the availability of personal information. From the readings, in the case of Katz v. United States, it was determined that “the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.” This idea, which lead to the adoption of the reasonable expectation of privacy test, can be seen as a core characteristic of the right to privacy.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with that statement, “Privacy depends on the context”. Privacy is always a collection of a person’s private inner-moments and their right to choose the degree to which they share that information. When you choose to publish an open blog on the internet, you are agreeing to sharing that post with whomever comes across it, but if you have a private blog, you have the right to assume that no others can see that without your say so. Similarly, in the comfort of your own home, you have the right to believe that your activities are private and unobserved. In any different context, from internet use to privacy at home, the common core of privacy remains the same, and as do general privacy understandings and policies.
ReplyDeleteNo, I disagree with the statement. Although the statement is correct in that privacy depends on the context; it is wrong in stating that "there are no common core characteristics of the right of privacy." As seen in the article by Daniel J. Solove, privacy can be characterized by family resemblances tying together specific privacy issues. Though the aforementioned idea may be met with some disagreement, a singular characteristic of the right of privacy can always be found in it's most narrowed definition which is ones right to keep their intimate information confidential.
ReplyDeleteNo, I disagree with the idea that there are no core characteristics to the right of privacy. We can determine multiple characteristics that can be used to define privacy. If we were to focus on only one of these elements, we would make the definition of privacy too broad or too specific. Elements in certain scenarios of privacy should be compared to other scenarios in order to find similarities, and thus core characteristics. Context is still incredibly important when defining privacy, as some scenarios may lack certain characteristics of privacy but contains others. Knowing the context of these scenarios will help us with our continued definition of privacy.
ReplyDeleteThe right to privacy does not depend on the context of the situation because there are no core characteristics of it. Perhaps in an ideal society, things like the Apple product master-key could exist and be used when presented with a search warrant, but unfortunately, it is those in positions of power who may elect that something is "necessary" nor not. Additionally, creating such a back door would violate the privacy of every apple product user if it were to fall into the wrong hands. For example, back in 1999, a group called Hackers Unite discovered Microsoft's master password for all Hotmail accounts. Thankfully, the hackers only did so to demonstrate both Microsoft's universality and their poor security at the time. However, an ideal society free from abuses would benefit greatly from utilizing a situation's context to protect those with good intent (the little girl in the talking Barbie story) while allowing law enforcement access to necessary information given it wouldn't be fraught with abuse.
ReplyDelete