Talk:Privacy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Dignity & Privacy

This article is very limited in scope, and "reasons for privacy" completely ignores the common basis of understanding e.g. in medical ethics that without privacy, dignity is severely impaired.

The same argument applies all cultures. 24.86.203.199 09:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Add a section about the psychology of privacy

I suggest adding a section explaining the psychological aspects of privacy, and why privacy is a fundamental human need. In summary:

1. Knowledge is power. Knowledge about me means power upon me. Knowledge can be abused, the power through knowledge about me can be used to harm me. Loosing the secrecy of information about me puts me at the mercy of those who know my secrets. Such abuse can be: manipulating, blackmailing, aspersing.
2. The need for privacy is thus ultimately part of the fundamental need for safety; safety with respect to minimising the power of others over oneself.
3. This is why we hesitate to give private information to others without adequate benefits. Who would tell their salary, their medical problems or their political opinions to any stranger without an adequate benefit in return?
4. We thus tend to give away personal data if we perceive the benefits of doing so justify the risks of doing so.
5. We make this tradeoff instinctively and routinely all the time. We constantly make decisions about how much to disclose to whom about ourselves against what benefit and at what risk.
6. The perceived risk of disclosing private information (and usually the real risk as well) is high when we know the other person (i.e. having interacted with that person for a while), when the other person has a good reputation or when we think the other person will take some damage when abusing our personal data (us taking revenge, her being prosecuted and punished, etc.). In the opposite case, the perceived risk is low.
7. This perceived risk tends to diminish over time, if we have the feeling that the other person didn't abuse our private information. In the other case, the perceived risk diminishes drastically.
8. Typical benefits of us disclosing our private information are getting a service or better service (I need to tell the butcher what I like or else he doesn't know what to give me), not annoying the other person who is requiring the information and who would do me harm if I didn't give her the information and compromising the other person by letting her know I trust her and thereby expressing my expectation of her not to abuse my trust and making her feel that revenge can be expected if ever whe should abuse my trust. Thus a method to tie another person's interests to mine.

Peter.keller (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

As pointed out here, most of the the content in this article actually relates to Data privacy, leaving little left in this article about non data/information related privacy. It therefore makes sense to merge them.

Once the merging and overall revision / completion of this article is being carried out as suggested here, it may result in a rather long article, justifying splitting up the article.

Kellerpm (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

philosophy of privacy

this article would be much better if it covered the philosophy of privacy. a good resource is http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/privacy/. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Other types of privacy

I have added new headings to discuss different "types of privacy" and "areas of privacy". I included sections for leading into existing articles on financial privacy, medical privacy, internet privacy, and data privacy. I also think that the sections currently titled "reasons for not maintaining privacy" and "privacy and security trade offs" should be reworked into sections discussing "reasons for privacy" and "reasons for relinquishing or denying privacy".

Personally I don't think data privacy should be merged into this article. The word "privacy" means many other things as well. I think the focus on data privacy may be a form of "systemic bias". Most wikipedians are info-tech workers and/or extensive internet users who are more concerned about someone reading our email or finding out where we have been surfing the web at work than with "real world" privacy concerns such as someone physically entering your home, searching your or your possessions, looking into your bedroom window, etc.--Afpre (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it should be merged into the article either. However, you must keep in mind that data privacy is not a phenomenon strictly limited to Internet-savvy tech-inclined people, and data is not necessarily digital data. For instance, if you are processed in the judicial system of an INTERPOL member country, your personal data could end up (quite literally) all over the world.

-Charlie.liban (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment on cleanup

I've been attempting some cleanup of the article. I moved a bunch of stuff here to subarticles, mostly, and then added section headers for conspicuous gaps in our coverage. I also checked through the history of this article for information that was once here and now isn't. Here are the three biggest removal diffs: [1], [2], [3]. I agree that this should have been removed, but the ideas might be worth researching further. Mangostar (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis of individual and collective right interesting but confusing

An anonymous person added a new section on privacy as a synthesis of an individual and collective right. I find the new text quite confusing. I'm tempted to just remove it since it was an anoymous edit... Or can someone else unpack it and make it make more sense? :-) Asbruckman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC).

Philosophy of privacy OR

Cut this section from article as it lacks cites and is mostly WP:OR. The foreign cite listed does not seem relevant. This is an important topic and shouldn't be written about in personal essay format. There's tons of privacy information easily available.

Privacy can be understood as an individual right: to control the communication of personal information, and as a property right. As a property right, data are alienable and thus all privacy rights can be lost. On the internet today, we live under a property rights regime. Privacy is also described as a collective value and a human right. A synthesis between these two types of understanding may be achieved by exposing the problem of political power as related to privacy or personal integrity, freedom of speech, rule of law, and ethics, where the clash between privacy and security, supposedly mediated by participatory practices, portrays in terms of political science a fruitless and hopeless clash between socialist and liberal ideologies which lack a "vertical" spiritual dimension. All this is ultimately related also to the issue of accuracy of information, seen as a measure of the risk of misunderstanding and misuse of such information. The individual right to control the communication of personal information must then be conceived also as the social and political right to influence the original build-up and creation of information which can influence the life of the individual.

--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Isolated instances, i.e. WebcamGate inappropriate

This material does not fit the context of the article. It is a news factoid, and is just one of many similar news-related privacy issues or court cases that one reads about. The article as it reads is of the general subject of privacy - the big picture mostly, with citations. To describe a single, isolated, case, with minutia such as "the schools admitted to secretly snapping over 66,000 webshots and screenshots" is not an improvement.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Generally, your point is well taken. On the other hand, the article does in fact mention ground-breaking cases, and this case led U.S. (asst) Attorney Michael L. Levy to say: "The issues raised by these allegations ... involve the meeting of the new world of cyberspace with that of physical space", and led Senator Specter to hold a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on the subject of privacy and telecommunications, and to introduce legislation in the Senate as a result. So it is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration to call it a factoid, and one of many similar court cases -- those are two highly unique indicia. Perhaps you have a better suggestion as to how to work it in, given that, which you feel does not so mar the flow?--Epeefleche (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to fit anywhere in this short article due to its broad coverage. But after the case is decided against the defendant, if that happens, it could be mentioned in a section of privacy laws of the U.S.. But even there, the the subject is very brief (I actually expanded it a while back) so a school privacy case could be mentioned with the cited link to the article.

A better way to do it, but requires some serious editing of a new section, would be to include examples of the many types of "invasions of privacy" cases that have been decided: ie. Google street view; city pole-mounted cameras for crime; cameras in stores, parks, elevators, & offices; all the other security cameras. And those are just webcam monitors! So there's no reason to skip over privacy issues from the internet in general, such as Facebook, Twitter, cookies, spam, email, phishing, blogs, and the massive field of cyber security and Cyberwar. It seems there's nowhere to limit the topic. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've not the time for that at the moment, though that sounds like a good idea. In the interim I would suggest -- if somehow you don't see this as fitting under privacy and technology/the internet (which I actually think it clearly does)-- then at minimum either: a) making it a briefer reference to the matter; or b) making it a see also w/explanatory language. The school has already admitted it took the webcam shots and screenshots, so there is nothing magic about the case being decided (or settled). The issue has been raised, and it has triggered Senate hearings and proposed Senate legislation.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I rechecked. Since this is an example of an "invasion of privacy" case, it would go in the section mentioned above, but not in this general article on privacy. However, since it's an "allegation" with an ongoing case, it really shouldn't be added to an encyclopedia until the case is decided. Announcing a "senate hearing" wouldn't fit for the same reasons, not until there is an outcome. The subject is immense - see Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL or Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This is beyond an allegation; the relevant facts have been admitted to. Furthermore, wp is replete of course with all manner of cases that wp reports while at the pre-decision stage. Nearly every single case of note that has been filed and is not decided is reflected on wikipedia (otherwise, we would still not have articles on the 9/11 attackers, the Christmas Day bombing, etc). The notability of this is far beyond cavil, and the Senate hearing was not only had (which is unique), taking testimony from the plaintiff and the Chair indicating that the testimony impelled him to decide to introduce legislation as a result, but the legislation has in fact been introduced into the Senate. This is all highly unusual and notable, and not at all run of the mill.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of what you say is true. Although the citation you used does refer to it as an "allegation" in the lawsuit. In any case, this is one example, a good one, of an "invasion of privacy" case. There are at least 50 different types of "invasions of privacy" that we could find. Many cases have been decided by the Supreme Court. But the only section that discusses "invasion of privacy" (above link) is very brief. As it is now, it would be totally imbalanced to even write that webcams have been used, without mentioning at least 10 other ways privacy can be invaded. And it would seem even more drastically off balance to just mention one particular case without a major expansion of the subject to make sure the mention has some context. Actually, an article on "Invasion of privacy" would be a good idea. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Agree as to an article, but do not have the time for that at the moment. The gravamen of the complaint is invasion of privacy. I would suggest, if you feel that it cannot be worked into the text without being imbalanced, that at minimum a see also be added. Obviously, I think it belongs in the text under one of those headings, but would view that as a reasonable compromise given your strong feelings. Thoughts?--Epeefleche (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -- does that mean you will do it, or agree that I should do it? It's nice to see that things can actually be talked out from time to time ... thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you'd see it. I expanded the brief "invasion of privacy" section to include it with some context. Considering all the ways privacy invasion can take place, it still seems to give undue notice to only a few, but what the heck? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I swear I've not been drinking. At least not too much. At least not within the past hour. Yet I can't see mention of the case ... --Epeefleche (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I added it as footnote #9: "Hacking into someone else's computer is a type of intrusion upon privacy,[8] as is secretly viewing or recording private information by still or video camera.[9]" It's really the only way to squeeze it in, but it could still get challenged for pointing out just a few types. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahah. I would suggest we add, after videocamera, "as in Robbins v. Lower Merion School District.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That kind of selectivity is inappropriate in an encyclopedia, as is citing a lawsuit in the works. Perspective and balance is key. Discussing and focusing on this case, nasty as it is, is OK as a news story or for a blog. Are you personally involved in this lawsuit, BTW? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

In wp:law articles, we cite to cases all the time, and especially inasmuch as the facts relevant to this sentence are not in dispute (the district having admitted it), there is no reason not to reflect it. It is the key lawsuit in the U.S. at least in this are, as reflected in its coverage, US Atty statement, Senate hearing, and proposed legislation. No -- just as with the Gerald Garson case article that I worked on recently, its an important case article that I've brought up to snuff. (And I'm also not even from Pennsylvania). I do have a few decades of experience in the law, though.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if the case, now in the courts, was decided. And even if the senate proposed some added legislation to protect privacy, mention of this case at that point would still give undue focus to a solitary instance or type of "invasion." Unless this brief subject is expanded greatly, as mentioned above, such a citation would be glaringly out of context, even at that point. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have a different view, but perhaps we should address your concern then by putting it in a see also section. That is standard for related cases not discussed in the text where it may be out of context.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Better idea: simply write up a little spiel like this one, and add the case to a relevant section, after its decided, of course. I'll help proofread and offer suggestions. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That could be a next step that you or anyone else could take. But this needn't be decided -- it already has prompted the RS coverage, the legislation being introduced, tens of thousands of ghits, and admissions. If it were settled, it would be as notable. In wikiproject law, we commonly report notable cases before they are decided -- that's the norm (even absent admissions, as we have here). Absent strong disagreement, I'll add a see also.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Strong objection" is duly noted. This is not a platform for out-of-context citations. As per all of your comments above, it would obviously become a biased addition in any case. This is not 9/11. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Well, you started off suggesting that it would break the flow. I've addressed that. You then suggest -- contrary to wikiproject law practice -- that it must await a decision. That's certainly not how wikipedia law works, and given the Senate hearings and legislation introduced relative to the case, it does not match wp:commonsense either. I'm not sure why as your initial comment was addressed, you are shifting arguments here, but your comments about wp:platform are out of line. I have a 50,000 (nearly) edit history on a wide range of subjects, have worked many articles into FA/GA and the like, and I think your suggestions of "bias" are likewise ill-founded. I fully addressed your "flow of the article" complaint, and at this point I feel your objection to a see also is without merit -- this is a perfectly appropriate use of the "see also" category. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I never said anything about "flow." I tried, but failed, to have you address in any way, that your citation would be "out of context," noting that in fact there is no context for this material. An out of context news item becomes a "news factoid," and "snippet," with no connection to the article as it stands. While you keep stressing the "merits of the case" and the evidence to date, those are all still irrelevant without a framework. After 50,000 edits you obviously know the rules, so why the push to break them? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

To the contrary, I'm seeking to apply them. This is a clearly related wiki article. The nexus of an article on privacy/technology and a major case on privacy/technology, as the Attorney General pointed out (not, I might point out, "in a push to break wikipedia rules"), is self-evident. Mention within the article would be perfectly appropriate. In the absence of that, mention in a bulleted list of internal links is clearly appropriate, as it is without question a related Wikipedia article. That's what the see also section is for. As the guidance even says, "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." I don't see a reasonable basis in your disagreement, to be frank. I've sought to address your concerns, but see no similar cooperative editing spirit on your side.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is out of context within any of the articles discussed so far. Listing this particular case in a "see also" section would be clearly out of place, as it would be the only case with an article link, and would have no contextual rationale for having it there. It would have no more legitimacy in the list than any of the other countless case articles related in any way to "privacy." The fact that you wrote over 80% of that article is not a rationale. As for not seeing any "cooperative editing spirit," I added your cite along with context to the other article. Any additional out of context links could be considered by some as potential spam for SEO, and not to improve these articles. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Does private behavior exist in non-human animals?

I am interested in finding out if there can be found analogues to the human desire for privacy in the behavior of other species, or if it is for the most part strictly a human manifestation. This question doesn't seem to be addressed in the current version of this article. Ground 23:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. A look at solitary animals and their need for territory is a vivid example of privacy in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.184.93 (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"Only criminals need privacy"

This is something that's brought up every now and then, a classic stupidity. It definitely should be well covered on Wikipedia. 88.148.214.22 (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's one nice article on the subject -85.131.27.22 (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a silly concept that only criminals need privacy, and to make matters worse, the concept itself is produced from the need of knowledge to further guard individual privacy and concerns pertaining to oneself. Therefore, not only is that article correct, a syllogism would demonstrate it as a contradiction and ultimately based on egotism/individual concerns, or a delusional belief that actions don't have consequences. This concept, as well as the philosophical and psychological suggestions above would be a great edition to anyone willing to labor it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.184.93 (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Questionable Content

The following is from the introduction (as of 2009-04-22):

The concept of privacy is most often associated with Western culture, English and North American in particular. According to some researchers, the concept of privacy sets Anglo-American culture apart even from other Western European cultures such as French or Italian.[1] The concept is not universal and remained virtually unknown in some cultures until recent times. A word "privacy" is usually regarded as untranslatable[2] by linguists. Many languages lack a specific word for "privacy". Such languages either use a complex description to translate the term (such as Russian "Неприкосновенность частной жизни") or borrow English "privacy" (as Indonesian "Privasi" or Italian "la privacy")[2].

I find this paragraph to be at great odds with common sense.

Name the cultures that do not have closed meetings, that do not have restricted ceremonies, where talk amoung individuals is not self-edited based on the people present.

Just because something is not named does not mean it does not exist.

The references do not substantiate the breath of claims. For example if one wants to use the word "Usually", as in '"privacy" is usually regarded' it does not suffice to provide only one citation. Moreover, I looked at that E-book, and the pertinent sentence names exactly one person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.189.10.64 (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) Would you bother actually reading these referecnes? There're two claims here: a) a concept of privacy is unique to Anglo-American culture; b) an English word "privacy" is regarded as untranslatable by linguists. Both of them are directly supported by references. In fact, they are neary direct quotations from references. (2) And closed meetings hase nothing to do with personal privacy BTW. (3) If you have never heard of something does not mean it does not exist. Netrat (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can't see the bs in that paragraph, then i doubt that you will get my point, but it'll try. (1) Go to the second reference Russian books; use the search field to search for the word privacy; go to the first link (page 3), which reads: "Referring to an English word such as privacy, considered by Newmark as 'untranslatable'". Moreover, the preceding sentence states that Neubert disagrees with Newmark's claim. Moreover, the term "privacy" is used anecdotally and occurs on only seven of the more than 230 pages. Moreover, does the appearance of that book on the web violate copyright laws? Does that anecdote substantiate wiki-author's use of the word "usually" or the plural "linguists"? (2) This is not an article about personal privacy, it is an article about privacy of individuals or groups (first nine words of the the article as of 2009-04-22). (3) Don't know what you are trying to say. ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.134.146 (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The presence of English word privacy in Russian texts only confirms that that there are English parts in Russian texts. Russian is written in Cyrillic text, not Latin, so a word written with Latin script cannot be Russian. Then, you yourself quoted a book that directly states that at least some linguists consider the word is untranslatable - and another linguist (the author of the book) cleary agrees with Mr. Newmark. Then, citing non-English sources is allowed for situations where a English source of similiar quality is not available. Citing an article in Russian is not a problem. I have verified it. It says directly that the whole concept is unique to Western Culture, and Anglo-Amerrican culture in particular. If you cannot read Russian, you can use Google Translate, but why would you want disrespecting WP:AGF in this matter? This is BTW a linguistics site operated by the Institute of Russian Language. So there are already 3 linguists saying this is untranslatable. If you want to change my "usually" to "some", you have to cite RS that would say that the concept is universal and not unique to any culture. Your "does the appearance of that book on the web violate copyright laws" question is out of scope of our discussion, it has nothing to do with it. But since it is hosted by Google Books, I would highly doubt that it might violate anything. And I meant "privacy of individuals" when I wrote "personal privacy", I don't think these things are different. Netrat (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

So I have answered all concerns you rose. Your arguments have been countered to one degree or another. And still, instead of presenting some valid arguments that would counter my answers, you just delete well-referenced content. You didn't even bother answering to this topic. I'm adding the content back to the article. In the end of the day, you seem to misinterpret what word "privacy" means, at least in psychological sense. Netrat (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the many difficulties with Wikipedia. You can source the most peculiar claims in human history because even the most peculiar ideas have some supporters. The peculiar notion that privacy is Anglo-American being an example. (Although privacy as a legal right, rather than cultural notion, might be Anglo-American) In any event the concept of privacy can be found in the Bible[4], Basque tradition[5], the writing of Plotinus[6], Confucianism, etc. The Seal of the Confessional certainly implies some things are private and was apparently fully formulated in 13th c. Italy not industrial England.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Bible, Basque tradition, Plotinus - they all are parts of Western culture, the culture based on both Bible and Greco-Roman traditions. No wonder Westerns concepts are covered in such sources. As for Confucianism, I've followed the link and found no citations or excepts, so there's nothing to support this claim. Netrat (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

excision by Ojl 15/8/11

Excised the following:

The concept of privacy is most often associated with [[Western culture]], 
English and North American in particular. According to some researchers, 
the concept of privacy sets [[Anglo-America]]n culture apart even from 
other Western European cultures such as French or Italian.<ref>
[http://www.gramota.ru/biblio/magazines/gramota/28_520 Gramota.ru]</ref>

This simply isn't correct.

Significant development of Privacy law in Japan predates similar developments in the west by 10 years or so. See Utage no ato. The reference link was dead and was to a Russian web site and seemed spurious to me, but if anyone wants to check it out they can. Oliver Low (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned up vandalism from an IP user today Pablo Palazzi 15:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabloandrespalazzi (talk • contribs)

I've added it back, rewrote the paragraph and fixed the refs. If you translate the article, it's an academic article that appears to be reliable, even if it's in Russian. Also, EnWP isn't supposed to be restricted to English sources. If it were, that would further cause more systematic bias. 68.101.102.227 (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)