Talk:Right to privacy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 May 2021 and 31 July 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): L0c40796. Peer reviewers: Tunjesh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Human Right

There should probably be a citation for the statement that privacy is a human right. It is not clear that citation [1] refers back to this statement. Privacy is not a right granted but he U.S. constitution, but perhaps someone can come up with the reference from a United Nations document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.130.69 (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. And the declaration "the inalienable human right to privacy" is the type of overly-expansive adjective usage flagged in other articles at wikipedia. Alpharigel (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Considering the following replacements to the Humans Rights section and Opening text: 10 December 1948 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) originally written to guarantee individual rights of everyone everywhere. The words Right to Privacy is not written in the document however, many interpret this by reading Article 12, which states:

• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

L0c40796 (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

References

"Shouted from the rooftops"

I've removed the assertion that 'Warren and Brandeis declared that information which was previously hidden and private could now be "shouted from the rooftops."' The reference given includes no such phrase. I've searched online, thinking that they must have written in some other article, but can only find widespread repetition of the claim, and in the four separate copies of the article I've looked at online, the phrase is not present.[1] [2] [3][4] It's widely claimed in other articles online [5] that Warren and Brandeis wrote this, and even in at least one book. [6] Yet the claim seems to be entirely apocryphal. Can anyone point out who actually said this, because it doesn't seem to have been written by Warren and Brandeis. Ruby Murray (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Intrusion

In the United States section, the link currently redirects to an article about rock formations. This is supposed to link to an article about legal intrusion that is protected against in the US.--172.243.120.52 (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Global surveillance template

Please see/join the discussion about Privacy and Global surveillance at Talk:Privacy#Global surveillance. Whizz40 (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Right to Privacy from Private Individuals/Organizations

This article is mostly about the right to privacy from government intrusion. A new section should be added concerning a right to privacy from private individuals/organizations (i.e. in matters relating to "doxing", spam, the recording of other persons without their consent, etc.). Nelson Richards (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree! I might also put a cross link to relevant books and media soon. You should do this, I think it's an excellent idea.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

POV

The following sentence in the lead:

The violation of this human right has come under the context of other human rights violations committed by NATO-member states (i.e. the unlawful detention of enemy combatants or civilians at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and other black sites, and extraordinary rendition).

is not sourced and not neutral. A violation according to whom? Extraordinary rendition is alleged and subjective at best. Therefore I removed the sentence. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Neutral Sources

For reference number 1 on the list, the source belongs to Privacilla.org, which introduced themselves as a libertarian group supporting less government intervention in privacy issue. The source does not appear to be a reliable and neutral source for wikipedia.-GloriaGu2018 (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Updating the section Privacy by country with the following details L0c40796 (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Privacy laws in different countries

Privacy laws apply to both public and private sector actors.

Australia

The right to privacy does not exist in Australia or as defined no absolute right to Privacy in Australian law. No right to privacy leads to no tort when one considers privacy has been violated. Australia provides protection of privacy in a limited fashion by way of the common law. The 1988 Privacy Act binds the Australian government to "strict confidentiality and secrecy provisions in social security, families, health, child support redress and disability services law."[7] The Privacy Act contains 13 Australian Privacy Principles.

China

The Constitution is the highest law in China. Privacy rights have been applied throughout China. The Constitution provides direction for all states in China and it further stipulates:

all states must abide by and be held accountable for any violation of the Constitution and the law; the law specifically protects civil rights of a citizen's personal dignity and confidentiality of correspondence.

China has a new standard and the first of its kind for the country coming into effect January 1, 2021, the Civil Code is the first of its kind sweeping law replacing all laws covering general provisions, real property, contracts, personality rights, marriage and family, inheritance, tort liability, and supplementary provisions.

In many cases raised in the legal system these rights have been overlooked as the courts have not treated each case with the same legal precedent precedent for each case. China sees human rights as a threat and they regularly spies on its citizens, largely through mass surveillance and CCTV. China is also known to censor historical events that put the government of China in a bad light and control the amount of information citizens can see beyond the country firewall.

European Union

Compared to the United States, the European Union (EU) has more extensive data protection laws.

The Council of Europe gathered to discuss the protection of individuals, during the Convention Treaty No.108 was created and opened for signature by members States and for accession by non-member States.

The Convention closed and the was renamed Convention 108: Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data.

Convention 108 has undergone 5 ratifications with the last ratification 10 January 1985 officially changing the name to Convention 108+ and providing the summary stating the intent of the treaty as:

The first binding international instrument which protects the individual against abuses which may accompany the collection and processing of personal data, and which seeks to regulate at the same time the transfrontier flow of personal data.

Increase use of the Internet and technological advancement in products lead to the Council of Europe to look at Convention 108+ and the relevance of the Treaty in the wake of the changes.

In 2011 the modernization of Convention 108+ started and completed in 2012 amending the treaty with Protocol CETS No223.

This modernization of Convention 108+ was in progress while the EU data protection rules were developed, the EU data protection rules would be adapted to become the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Under GDPR, data about citizens may only be gathered or processed under specific cases, and with certain conditions. Requirements of data controller parties under the GDPR include keeping records of their processing activities, adopting data protection policies, transparency with data subjects, appointing a Data Protection Officer, and implementing technical safeguards to mitigate security risks.[1]

India

A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar, ruled on August 24, 2017, that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right for Indian citizens under the Constitution of India (mostly under Article 21 and additionally under Part III rights). Thus, no legislation passed by the government can unduly violate it. Specifically, the court adopted the three-pronged test required for the encroachment of any Article 21 right – legality-i.e. through an existing law; necessity, in terms of a legitimate state objective and proportionality, that ensures a rational nexus between the object of the invasion and the means adopted to achieve that object.

This clarification was crucial to prevent the dilution of the right in the future on the whims and fancies of the government in power. The Court adopted a liberal interpretation of the fundamental rights in order to meet the challenges posed an increasing digital age. It held that individual liberty must extend to digital spaces and individual autonomy and privacy must be protected.

This ruling by the Supreme Court paved the way for decriminalization of homosexuality in India on 6 September 2018, thus legalizing same-sex sexual intercourse between two consenting adults in private. India is the world's biggest democracy and with this ruling, it has joined United States, Canada, South Africa, the European Union, and the UK in recognizing this fundamental right.

The new data sharing policy of WhatsApp with Facebook after Facebook acquired WhatsApp in 2014 has been challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court must decide if the right to privacy can be enforced against private entities.

Israel

In Israel privacy protection is a constitutional basic right and is therefore protected by the Basic Law. Basic Law: the Knesset passed on February 12, 1958, but the Third Knesset. The Twelfth Knesset update to the Basic Law occurred on March 17, 1992. This update added to the law Human Dignity and Liberty by defining:

Human freedom in Israel as being the right to leave the country and enter it, as well as the right to privacy and intimacy, refrainment from searches relating to one's private property, body and possessions, and avoidance of violations of the privacy of one's speech, writings and notes.

October 2006 Israel established a regulatory authority, the PPA, part of the Ministry of Justice. PPA defined the Privacy Law and associated regulates comprised of two principles: general right to online privacy and the protection of personal data stored in databases.

In 2005, students of the Haifa Center for Law & Technology asserted that the right to privacy "should not be defined as a separate legal right" at all. By their reasoning, existing laws relating to privacy, in general, should be sufficient. Other experts, such as William Prosser, have attempted but failed, to find a "common ground" between the leading kinds of privacy cases in the court system, at least to formulate a definition. One law school treatise from Israel, however, on the subject of "privacy in the digital environment," suggests that the "right to privacy should be seen as an independent right that deserves legal protection in itself." It has therefore proposed a working definition for a "right to privacy":

The right to privacy is our right to keep a domain around us, which includes all those things that are part of us, such as our body, home, property, thoughts, feelings, secrets, and identity. The right to privacy gives us the ability to choose which parts in this domain can be accessed by others and to control the extent, manner, and timing of the use of those parts we choose to disclose.

Russia

The Constitution of the Russian Federation: Article 45 states:

1. State protection of human and civil rights and freedoms in the Russian Federation shall be guaranteed.
2. Everyone shall the right to protect his (her) rights and freedoms by all means not prohibited by law.

Main article: Data protection (privacy) laws in Russia

The Russian Constitution specifically articles 23 and 24, institutes individual citizen the right to privacy. Russia, a member of the Strasbourg Convention, ratified processing of personal data against automatic processing and afterwards adopted a new convention. The new Russian Federal Law No.152-FZ R implemented on July 27, 2006, was updated to cover Personal Data and this law extends privacy to include personal and family secrets. Its main target is to protect individuals' personal data.

Privacy entered the forefront of Russian legislature in 2014 when the approach to privacy turned to the goal of protecting privacy of government operations and the people of Russia. The amendments originally modified the Personal Data Law which has since been renamed The Data Localisation Law. The new law requires business operators who collect any information on Russian citizens' must maintain the collected data locally. This means that data transmission, processing, and storage must be in a database in Russia. March 1, 2021, the new amendment came into effect. Consent from the data subject is required if the data operator wants to use the data publicly.

United States

Main article: Privacy laws of the United States

The Constitution of the United States and United States Bill of Rights do not explicitly include a right to privacy.

In the US, Privacy and associated rights have been determined via court cases and the protections have been established through Laws.

The Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) found in that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion via penumbras located in the founding text.

1890 Warren and Brandeis drafted an article published in the Harvard Law Review article titled "The Right To Privacy" is often cited as the first implicit finding of a U.S. stance on the right to privacy.

Right to privacy has been the justification for decisions involving a wide range of civil liberties cases, including Pierce v. Society of Sisters, which invalidated a successful 1922 Oregon initiative requiring compulsory public education, Roe v. Wade, which struck down an abortion law from Texas, and thus restricted state powers to enforce laws against abortion, and Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down a Texas sodomy law, and thus eliminated state powers to enforce laws against sodomy

Legally the right of privacy is a basic law which includes:

1. The right of persons to be free from unwarranted publicity
2. Unwarranted appropriation of one's personality
3. Publicizing one's private affairs without a legitimate public concern
4. Wrongful intrusion into one's private activities

In 2018 the First state in the United States, California, originally set out to create a policy promoting data protection. The resulting effort is the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) reviewed as a critical juncture where the legal definition of what privacy entails from California law makers perspective. The California Consumer Protection Act is a privacy law protecting the residents of California and their Personal identifying information. The law enacts regulation over all companies regardless of operational geography protecting the six Intentional Acts included in the law.

Intentions of the CCPA Act

The intentions included in the Act provide California residents with the right to:

1. Know what personal data is being collected about them.
2. Know whether their personal data is sold or disclosed and to whom.
3. Say no to the sale of personal data.
4. Access their personal data.
5. Request a business to delete any personal information about a consumer collected from that consumer.
6. Not be discriminated against for exercising their privacy rights.

Updated the section above and moving to published article. L0c40796 (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

L0c40796 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Copyvio issue

I removed the copyvio banner that was based on this copyvio detector result, which fails to identify the actual source of the plagiarism. The initial paragraph of text was plagiarized but included a citation, so it was a failure to properly quote; see Special:Diff/797142523. I'm not sure if this qualifies for a RevDel so for now I am just removing the paragraph. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 03:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)