I don't mean this in an antagonistic way, but has anyone clearly articulated a right to privacy in a clear succinct way? Unlike other human rights, the right to privacy has always been a bit fuzzy with a ton of exceptions and caveats

I just find it hard to imagine the right to privacy encoded in to law in a way that would block this. For instance there is a right to privacy in the US, but it's in a completely idiotic way. The 14th Amendment doesn't talk about privacy in any way, and it's some legal contortions and mental gymnastics that are upholding any right to privacy there.

▲

taink 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

What would pass "clear and succinct" in your opinion? I don't see how it is less clearly defined than any other human right.

Let's take international law[1]. Right to privacy is defined as protection from arbitrary interference with privacy.

Is this definition problematic? Privacy itself has a short definition too: the ability of one to remove themselves or information about themselves from the public[2].

I don't see what is unclear or verbose here.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy#International [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy

▲

contrarian1234 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> arbitrary interference with privacy

So if it's non-arbitrary, but systematic and consistent then anything goes?

The linked article has a great anachronism providing protections against

> attacks upon his honor and reputation

haha

> the ability of one to remove themselves or information about themselves from the public

This is completely divorced from reality.. This is pure fantasy in the digital age...

▲

arlort 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> I don't see how it is less clearly defined than any other human right

Human rights are famously almost impossible to clearly define because they're an entirely abstract category relying very much on cultural consensus for their practical definition

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

> Is this definition problematic?

Yes, very much so. By qualifying that the interference must not be unlawful it essentially makes any interference by law (like what was proposed here in the first place) fine

> privacy, family, home or correspondence

This is very restrictive, for instance there's nothing in it about online storage or your laptop / phone since they're neither your home, family or correspondence

> unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation

This manages to be so unclear that if applied strictly it'd ban any criticism of a politician or anyone else as long as you can construe it as "attacking their reputation"

▲

taink 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Exactly, I completely agree with you. This is what baffled me about the parent comment: "Unlike other human rights, the right to privacy has always been a bit fuzzy with a ton of exceptions and caveats".

Compare the right to privacy with other human rights, and I find it as clear and succinct as its counterparts (if not clearer and more succinct in some cases).

At the same time, given the international nature of these laws, I disagree with you on their problematic nature. They are (in my view) meant as a basis of diplomatic debate and not enforcement (which would be impracticable). They are to be complemented by organic law, because on their own they are unenforceable.

▲

xienze 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Human rights are famously almost impossible to clearly define

Actually, not really. Just apply the "desert island" thought experiment to any given "human right." If you're not afforded that "human right" should you wind up on a desert island one day, it's not really a "human right" but rather a "right" that requires state backing to exist (and subject to its whims as you pointed out).

	▲	arlort 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The fact you think that qualifies as a "clear" definition is fascinating. This feels like just a reflexive regurgitation of the distinction between positive and negative rights that has no relevance to the discussion at all
	▲	immibis 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		What?

▲

Geee 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It's simple game theory. If one player (government) has access to private information of all players (citizens), then it's not possible to keep the government from winning, i.e. becoming tyrannical. Losing privacy equals losing liberty.

	▲	contrarian1234 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I think you missed my point entirely. I'm not trying to argue there shouldn't be any privacy or anything like that That's not my questions at all. My question is, is there some good clear framework for what should and shouldn't be private. B/c otherwise it's kind of some meaningless platitude, like "everyone should be nice to each other"