No, I think that there are common core characteristics of privacy. However, I do believe that there are some facets of privacy that do depend on context, such as what rights a private individual has to privacy and what rights a company has to privacy. I think that privacy in general is about controlling information. Protecting one's privacy often entails supervising who can access what information about oneself. Thus, there are characteristics of privacy that hold true across varying contexts, even if not every detail of different forms of privacy.
I do not believe there are any common core characteristics of privacy for the very "scientific" reason that philosophers have been searching for a common characteristic for the last few hundred years but have not found one. When so many great minds are applied to a single problem, it seems most likely that eventually someone would come up with an answer. But, as privacy eludes a solid definition even to this day, it seems most likely that there are no common core elements of privacy.
No, I believe that the core characteristic of privacy is the right to keep something hidden or secret. However, in certain situations the extent of privacy may change because of the the rights of individuals or corporations. The idea of privacy seems to have a lot of gray area. Although the world seems to convince us that we have a private life, the reality of the situation is that we are constantly being tracked or looked at.
No Privacy is very abstract and cannot be defined easily, but it has some core characteristics. In any context, privacy relates to the exposure of information. Situations involving privacy have someone's information being given to some entity for which it was or was not intended by that person. Deeper concerns with privacy involve the use of that information. However, many privacy concerns can be far apart and have few common characteristics.
Yes. I believe that privacy depends on context. Individuals each have their own definitions of "privacy" for themselves, others outside themselves, and for society. For each person, the relationship of privacy to their lives is multi-faceted and affects the definition of "privacy" differently depending on the situation. It seems to me that privacy is evaluated and defined on a case-by-case basis in an individual's mind. There may be core characteristics, if one were to look at cases and extract each individual's take on the fundamentals of privacy, but there would also be many outliers and I think that information could potentially prove to be more important to each case, to give a more comprehensive perspective on the case and privacy in terms of that person and situation rather than ignore or twist information to group all privacy cases together.
In a broad sense, yes, there are no common characteristics of privacy. The term "privacy" has been around for so long, yet it has no fixed definition. However, it has been acknowledged that some different aspects of privacy and privacy concerns can be fairly similar. In the end, it is up to the individual to decide for himself or herself what the term means to them.
No. Solove makes a compelling argument that “privacy is not reducible to a singular essence” (756). His taxonomy is a logical demonstration of privacy’s numerous, often oversimplified facets, but I think that each of those facets do have a “singular essence” in common. That essence is the consent of the individual. Privacy in its most basic form is the right to give or deny consent on others accessing information about them. A violation of privacy in any form is ultimately a compromise of this right.
I both agree and disagree with this statement. Yes, privacy depends on context. For example having a conversation with your doctor in their office will have a different assumption of privacy than talking with a friend and asking them to keep a secret. Although, I do think there are common core characteristics of privacy, such as a verbal, written, or implied agreement that the information shared is not to be shared with others without consent from the person. The definitions of privacy will very depending on the situation but there is a general understanding in society of what is means to seek privacy. It is a subjective term but it does indicate that some type of information is meant to be shared with some people but not others. It becomes more complicated when we start to think about how to protect privacy because it can mean different things to different people.
No. Privacy does depend on context, but there are common characteristics nonetheless. In class, we looked at a list of 12 items that "privacy is." I think those items can be boiled town to two universal components: having control over a zone of intimacy, and controlling access to one's personal information. The rest of the list may or may not be applicable, depending on context.
Yes. The only thing people can seem to agree upon when it comes to privacy is that there should be some of it. There are things that I choose to be private about, that I don’t even know why I want to keep private. I think there are things that people commonly don’t want in their lives, being watched by people you don’t know, but that could be entirely different for someone looking to be recruited for a sports team, or a celebrity. People want different kinds of privacy, in different amounts, depending on their context.
Yes. Privacy is simply too ill defined and covers far too many different things to have a universally core characteristic. Sure, many facets of privacy share common characteristics, but I can't think of a single characteristic that is shared by all types of privacy. For example, a common characteristic is that privacy is about being able to control information about ones self, but this characteristic does not appear in personal space which is considered a type of privacy. Also, the difference in privacy for businesses vs privacy for people further thins the definition of privacy.
I don't agree with the statement. I think that privacy does depend on context but I also think that privacy has common core characteristics. I think in most cases privacy involves controlling the information available to others about yourself or something you are involved in. While privacy does vary greatly in context, a common characteristic that applies to most cases of privacy is control.
No. Privacy should always include the right to keep your personal information private from the general public. If you wish to have your name, address, or phone number removed from a place where the public has access to it, I think that it should be legally required to comply unless it regards a wider public issue of safety or health. (ie: sex offender registry, contagious diseases.) I think that government agencies and health care providers could be held to a different standard, however. These institutions may be allowed more thorough access to people's records. I like what Ellie said above about a core characteristic being "control."
Yes, I believe the definitions and expectations of privacy depend on context. If it were not so, the privacy of the individual would not be able to be weighed against the interest of the collective. In addition, it would be unreasonable to assume that the implications of one’s definition of privacy can and will be observed in the varying contexts found in day to day interactions. One’s rights to privacy will vary through the lenses of social interaction, governmental involvement, and international suspicion. I think it’s possible to make the argument that “privacy” should be a universally standardized ideal (albeit a difficult one), but as to whether it exists today in all circumstances in the same aspects or not is a different question. It comes down to separating ideology from practice. As an abstract concept, when one thinks of “privacy,” yes there will be common cognitive threads between peoples and cultures. But in practice, generalization is impossible.
Yes. Whatever is or isn't considered private is ultimately determined by the person/entity being asked. Certain information that would be considered very personal in one circumstance (say for example a person's weight/height/etc.) might be freely offered or even expected in another (a post on an online dating site, a modeling gig, or boxing weigh-in). The value of information is determined by people, and people will value the same information differently in different contexts. Because of this, determining whether or not something violates privacy first requires understanding the value of the information in the given circumstance. Thus, matters of privacy ought to be judged on a case-by-case basis, where the relative value of the information at stake is weighed against the needs of circumstance.
I do agree with the statement that states, "Privacy depends on context; there are no common core characteristics of privacy." One of the major reasons that I believe and agree with the statement is that of the use of the word 'privacy.' In many instances, people use it flippantly stating that someone has violated their privacy. But everyone has different thresholds of privacy. The person in question may not have been violating the privacy in the eyes of others in that instance. Another reason is the eight definitions or characteristics of the word privacy that we discussed in class on Monday. With these definitions, the term 'privacy' could be used many different ways in different situations to try to protect themselves. Moreover, in class on Wednesday when talking about the four privacy torts, different people thought that the torts applied in different situations. This shows that there is no common core characteristics. If there were, there wouldn't have been any discussion as to which privacy tort applied to which case. Furthermore, as with every right, we don't have full access to it. For example, one cannot yell 'fire' in a theater. Therefore, privacy and our right to it, depends on the context of the situation.
No, I do not agree with the statement. There are common characteristics of privacy with the most standard one being protection; protection of one's secrets, conversations, reputations, etc. all concern privacy. Of course, it is difficult to define privacy simply as "protection of one's personal information" because there are different contexts where privacy is applied. As Solove points out, "According to philosopher Julie Inness, the legal and philosophical discourse of privacy is in a state of chaos"(Solove). The fact that we can pin privacy down as a "state of chaos" shows that, ironically, the definitive characteristic of privacy is its chaos. Therefore, there are common characteristics of privacy, however, we require context to accurately determine what type of privacy - and how its protection should be handled - is at hand.
Yes, I do agree that there are common characteristics of privacy. This does not mean that there is an exact definition of privacy, but because we are able to recognize what privacy is by listing its attributes means that they are common. If they were not common we would not be able to recognize what privacy is without being told directly. However, what is considered to be private is based on context, but there are still characteristics that are common no matter what the context is.
Yes, I think there is a common spirit of privacy. The feeling of it and of when it is breached exists even when the contexts of it's violation are different. Misappropriating someone's image is different from revealing private information but they both are an intrusion into what one could consider their "personal bubble" of information. The degree of severity the breach of privacy is differs based on the sensitivity of information, more specifically how deep the layers of protection the information is buried under and to what degree the uncovering of information could hurt the individual. The context of these layers of privacy are all different, however the fact of it being a violation I believe is universally understood.
No, I think that there are common core characteristics of privacy. However, I do believe that there are some facets of privacy that do depend on context, such as what rights a private individual has to privacy and what rights a company has to privacy. I think that privacy in general is about controlling information. Protecting one's privacy often entails supervising who can access what information about oneself. Thus, there are characteristics of privacy that hold true across varying contexts, even if not every detail of different forms of privacy.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe there are any common core characteristics of privacy for the very "scientific" reason that philosophers have been searching for a common characteristic for the last few hundred years but have not found one. When so many great minds are applied to a single problem, it seems most likely that eventually someone would come up with an answer. But, as privacy eludes a solid definition even to this day, it seems most likely that there are no common core elements of privacy.
ReplyDeleteNo, I believe that the core characteristic of privacy is the right to keep something hidden or secret. However, in certain situations the extent of privacy may change because of the the rights of individuals or corporations. The idea of privacy seems to have a lot of gray area. Although the world seems to convince us that we have a private life, the reality of the situation is that we are constantly being tracked or looked at.
ReplyDeleteNo
ReplyDeletePrivacy is very abstract and cannot be defined easily, but it has some core characteristics. In any context, privacy relates to the exposure of information. Situations involving privacy have someone's information being given to some entity for which it was or was not intended by that person. Deeper concerns with privacy involve the use of that information. However, many privacy concerns can be far apart and have few common characteristics.
Yes. I believe that privacy depends on context. Individuals each have their own definitions of "privacy" for themselves, others outside themselves, and for society. For each person, the relationship of privacy to their lives is multi-faceted and affects the definition of "privacy" differently depending on the situation. It seems to me that privacy is evaluated and defined on a case-by-case basis in an individual's mind. There may be core characteristics, if one were to look at cases and extract each individual's take on the fundamentals of privacy, but there would also be many outliers and I think that information could potentially prove to be more important to each case, to give a more comprehensive perspective on the case and privacy in terms of that person and situation rather than ignore or twist information to group all privacy cases together.
ReplyDeleteIn a broad sense, yes, there are no common characteristics of privacy. The term "privacy" has been around for so long, yet it has no fixed definition. However, it has been acknowledged that some different aspects of privacy and privacy concerns can be fairly similar. In the end, it is up to the individual to decide for himself or herself what the term means to them.
ReplyDeleteNo. Solove makes a compelling argument that “privacy is not reducible to a singular essence” (756). His taxonomy is a logical demonstration of privacy’s numerous, often oversimplified facets, but I think that each of those facets do have a “singular essence” in common. That essence is the consent of the individual. Privacy in its most basic form is the right to give or deny consent on others accessing information about them. A violation of privacy in any form is ultimately a compromise of this right.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI both agree and disagree with this statement. Yes, privacy depends on context. For example having a conversation with your doctor in their office will have a different assumption of privacy than talking with a friend and asking them to keep a secret. Although, I do think there are common core characteristics of privacy, such as a verbal, written, or implied agreement that the information shared is not to be shared with others without consent from the person. The definitions of privacy will very depending on the situation but there is a general understanding in society of what is means to seek privacy. It is a subjective term but it does indicate that some type of information is meant to be shared with some people but not others. It becomes more complicated when we start to think about how to protect privacy because it can mean different things to different people.
No. Privacy does depend on context, but there are common characteristics nonetheless. In class, we looked at a list of 12 items that "privacy is." I think those items can be boiled town to two universal components: having control over a zone of intimacy, and controlling access to one's personal information. The rest of the list may or may not be applicable, depending on context.
ReplyDeleteYes.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing people can seem to agree upon when it comes to privacy is that there should be some of it. There are things that I choose to be private about, that I don’t even know why I want to keep private. I think there are things that people commonly don’t want in their lives, being watched by people you don’t know, but that could be entirely different for someone looking to be recruited for a sports team, or a celebrity. People want different kinds of privacy, in different amounts, depending on their context.
Yes. Privacy is simply too ill defined and covers far too many different things to have a universally core characteristic. Sure, many facets of privacy share common characteristics, but I can't think of a single characteristic that is shared by all types of privacy. For example, a common characteristic is that privacy is about being able to control information about ones self, but this characteristic does not appear in personal space which is considered a type of privacy. Also, the difference in privacy for businesses vs privacy for people further thins the definition of privacy.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with the statement. I think that privacy does depend on context but I also think that privacy has common core characteristics. I think in most cases privacy involves controlling the information available to others about yourself or something you are involved in. While privacy does vary greatly in context, a common characteristic that applies to most cases of privacy is control.
ReplyDeleteNo. Privacy should always include the right to keep your personal information private from the general public. If you wish to have your name, address, or phone number removed from a place where the public has access to it, I think that it should be legally required to comply unless it regards a wider public issue of safety or health. (ie: sex offender registry, contagious diseases.) I think that government agencies and health care providers could be held to a different standard, however. These institutions may be allowed more thorough access to people's records. I like what Ellie said above about a core characteristic being "control."
ReplyDeleteYes, I believe the definitions and expectations of privacy depend on context. If it were not so, the privacy of the individual would not be able to be weighed against the interest of the collective. In addition, it would be unreasonable to assume that the implications of one’s definition of privacy can and will be observed in the varying contexts found in day to day interactions. One’s rights to privacy will vary through the lenses of social interaction, governmental involvement, and international suspicion. I think it’s possible to make the argument that “privacy” should be a universally standardized ideal (albeit a difficult one), but as to whether it exists today in all circumstances in the same aspects or not is a different question. It comes down to separating ideology from practice. As an abstract concept, when one thinks of “privacy,” yes there will be common cognitive threads between peoples and cultures. But in practice, generalization is impossible.
ReplyDeleteYes. Whatever is or isn't considered private is ultimately determined by the person/entity being asked. Certain information that would be considered very personal in one circumstance (say for example a person's weight/height/etc.) might be freely offered or even expected in another (a post on an online dating site, a modeling gig, or boxing weigh-in). The value of information is determined by people, and people will value the same information differently in different contexts. Because of this, determining whether or not something violates privacy first requires understanding the value of the information in the given circumstance. Thus, matters of privacy ought to be judged on a case-by-case basis, where the relative value of the information at stake is weighed against the needs of circumstance.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the statement that states, "Privacy depends on context; there are no common core characteristics of privacy." One of the major reasons that I believe and agree with the statement is that of the use of the word 'privacy.' In many instances, people use it flippantly stating that someone has violated their privacy. But everyone has different thresholds of privacy. The person in question may not have been violating the privacy in the eyes of others in that instance. Another reason is the eight definitions or characteristics of the word privacy that we discussed in class on Monday. With these definitions, the term 'privacy' could be used many different ways in different situations to try to protect themselves. Moreover, in class on Wednesday when talking about the four privacy torts, different people thought that the torts applied in different situations. This shows that there is no common core characteristics. If there were, there wouldn't have been any discussion as to which privacy tort applied to which case. Furthermore, as with every right, we don't have full access to it. For example, one cannot yell 'fire' in a theater. Therefore, privacy and our right to it, depends on the context of the situation.
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not agree with the statement. There are common characteristics of privacy with the most standard one being protection; protection of one's secrets, conversations, reputations, etc. all concern privacy. Of course, it is difficult to define privacy simply as "protection of one's personal information" because there are different contexts where privacy is applied. As Solove points out, "According to philosopher Julie Inness, the legal and philosophical discourse of privacy is in a state of chaos"(Solove). The fact that we can pin privacy down as a "state of chaos" shows that, ironically, the definitive characteristic of privacy is its chaos. Therefore, there are common characteristics of privacy, however, we require context to accurately determine what type of privacy - and how its protection should be handled - is at hand.
ReplyDeleteYes, I do agree that there are common characteristics of privacy. This does not mean that there is an exact definition of privacy, but because we are able to recognize what privacy is by listing its attributes means that they are common. If they were not common we would not be able to recognize what privacy is without being told directly. However, what is considered to be private is based on context, but there are still characteristics that are common no matter what the context is.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think there is a common spirit of privacy. The feeling of it and of when it is breached exists even when the contexts of it's violation are different. Misappropriating someone's image is different from revealing private information but they both are an intrusion into what one could consider their "personal bubble" of information. The degree of severity the breach of privacy is differs based on the sensitivity of information, more specifically how deep the layers of protection the information is buried under and to what degree the uncovering of information could hurt the individual. The context of these layers of privacy are all different, however the fact of it being a violation I believe is universally understood.
ReplyDelete