Why There Is No "Right to Privacy"

A right to privacy is explicitly stated under Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation.” The Israeli Supreme Court Privacy Protection Act of 1981, Section 2 uses words like "harass" and "embarrass". These subjective terms illustrate the transient and variable nature of the discussion and concept of "privacy", as explicated in the following point:

"Another characteristic of the right to privacy which contributes to the difficulty in defining it is the fact the right to privacy is subjective in nature, culturally dependant, and is derived from the expectations of the society in a certain period of time. Therefore, privacy has been given different meanings over the years, being influenced by political, social and economic changes and by technological developments."[sic]. Yael Onn et.al., Privacy in the Digital Environment (Haifa Center of Law & Technology, Niva Elkin-Koren, Michael Birnhack, eds., 2005).

In the United States, there exists an explicit right to security in person and possessions, as laid out in the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of this nation. It allows for legal search and seizure, meaning the outlined right is limited and readily circumvented through legal channels. This is why police are required to obtain a warrant to search a person or place: it supersedes the U.S. Constitutional right in cases where a judge finds the need. Thereby citizens only have as much security as allowed by laws that are interpreted by judges.

However, I am not an attorney and this not legal advice; I am merely outlining a few points briefly.


I propose that what is actually being discussed, at least in public discourse, is not privacy. Leaving that aside for the moment, it seems there are a number of different terms or ideas brought up in this discussion: privacy, secrecy, and security. Each of these may sound very similar, or even synonymous. If they all mean about the same thing, then what is the difference and why is there such argument over this topic? To reach those answers, we'll take a look at each concept shortly.

First, the much-lauded 'privacy'. When your someone read your diary, you probably screamed something about "invasion of privacy". This example indicates that there are certain parts of my life that are public, and others are not. Aside from being the opposite of private, what is public? It means "open to all" or "accessible to any individual." Public spaces are open and available to anyone who wants to be there. This is different from 'private property', where one needs to obtain permission to enter. This is analogous to 'public and private lives or information', where only certain parts are open to anyone. Essentially, we can define privacy as "the ability to choose what becomes known to whom".

Next, the idea of secrecy. This is information kept from the knowledge of others, or of certain people. This is getting a bit deeper, as secret has a connotation of confiding and/or trust. This seems a more personal choice, as many things are public by default or by law. A secret is something private that even those closest to me may not know; in a way, another layer of privacy.

Then, we come to security. This holds the other terms, in a sense. To be secure is to be safe; in this case, safe from the possibility of having privacy or secrecy taken away. This can be thought of as freedom from worry or threat of a breach in privacy. In this, we have the heart of the public discussion: individuals are worried (their security is threatened) that information about them that they considered confidential (private) is being given to others they did not agree to (sharing what was supposed to be secret).

In no way are these venues (social media, for example) clearly and solely defined as public or private. One may utilize "privacy settings" to declare one's preferences, but that only applies to the information one deliberately supplies, such as pictures and words. Behind the scenes, these platforms are collecting information on users that is not widely acknowledged: searches, purchases, connections to other users, demographics, etc. This is all used to 'target ads', meaning if I bought baby stuff recently that I may see more of those types of items; this is why Amazon.com seems so convenient, because it will suggest things that go with what I've already purchased and - even more broadly - what other people with similar 'profiles' have bought. None of this is entirely new, as TV (and before that, radio) was seen as a means for companies to advertise/sell their products to audiences. Certainly, television is a medium for ads and sellers pay money for advertising time during TV programs; many websites contain ads in a similar fashion, and both use those "ad revenues" to pay for keeping the TV station or website going. What is new is the ability to target ads even more specifically, based on the information collected by these websites. In addition, one has no control over how all that information gets collected, used, or distributed.

What this indicates to me is that the present-day talk about "privacy" is really a confrontation about ownership. If companies can collect information about me and then sell that data, it is just about who has a right to ownership and ability to sell information about 'me'.  Are those interests, preferences, and purchase histories my property (as they are inherently a part of me), or do they belong to the owners of websites I use to engage my interests? What we need is not necessarily a "right to privacy" as much as definition of personal information ownership. Once that is established, since ownership of personal property (even intellectual property) is clearly and legally laid out, we can settle the debate over "privacy" in this instance.

I Take Responsibility for Trump

I did not take seriously the possibility of someone so obviously unfit, unqualified, and unbelievable. I dismissed out of hand, denied with disdain, and scoffed with self-satisfaction. I did not consider for a moment that a great number of people could be swayed by their own disaffected frustration with the way things are. I was as lulled into complacency as so many privileged citizens have been. It is still unthinkable to me that this terrible individual had a chance of being given such a position. He is so demonstrably incapable of the dignity, restraint, and consideration required to be a leader. I look at him still and see the opposite of nearly all attributes that make a person fit for an elected office, let alone one at such a level. I put his chances of success on par with the possibility of Mickey Mouse being elected.

To be clear, these are not excuses. I am not asking for mercy for my error, and I fully recognize that I will be paying a price for my pride. No, this is to explicate my own responsibility and demonstrate how I missed all the opportunities to prevent this travesty. Instead, I should have been making efforts to talk with those individuals who were accepting and supporting the messages that Trump-the-candidate was spouting. It is not in my power to change DNC/RNC policies, I cannot lobby or buy media time, nor can I influence large number of people at rallies. However, I can reach out and build relationships with those who believe differently than I do.

In this way, most of all, is how I failed. I believe it is because we don't have good relations and strong, mutual respect for "others" that people like Trump succeed. Those "divisions" allow us to be steered like cattle by persuasive personalities. I use scare quotes because those words are artificial constructs and the emphasis denotes how they don't fit in reality. Lately, and with tremendous effort, I have begun looking for positive outcomes. In this case I have hopes that there may be some yet.

I cannot ignore this situation, and hope that no one else is able to, as well. I have been shaken from my complacency, and I hope that everyone else is also. I realize that things can truly be worse, and believe that others want that not to happen. We can come together, and need to more than ever.

Gaming for Those Who Do Not Game

I propose that social media are MMORPGs for non-gamers. What is a Massively Multi-player Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG)? People think of World of Warcraft, League of Legends, and others [see Wikipedia]. Essentially, it is an online game environment with artificial rules and imposed goals. Create an avatar, interact with others inside the game environment, and collect items and experience that demonstrate ones' coolness. People complete in-game actions together and can make real-life friends; others join to enjoy time with friends they already know and bond more.

What is social media? An artificial environment where people create profiles that reflect what they wish for themselves, post only what appeals, mirrors the experiences that others will enjoy or envy, and has pluses and minuses (votes) to demonstrate ones' status. Instead of prehistoric, futuristic, or fantastic warriors or wizards, people choose from the 'perfect spouse', 'renegade', or 'enviable go-getter' roles. These take practice as the rules are not clear at first; the longer someone plays the social media game, the better they are able to do it. Again, some join and meet up with others in-game; some join because they know people who already participate.

This is not just an amusing example of unconventional comparison. I think this is important to recognize these parallels because they are both games. Only one of the categories, however, is recognized as a "frivolous game", even though they both are. Some people, in both camps, take it seriously, and create real-world consequences for themselves and others. I think that adjusting how social media is perceived could relieve the pressure that participants can feel. It's possible that letting things be what they are instead of making them more important will allow us to focus on what truly matters.

Another Try

There is an old idea expressed in a contemporary manner: "Do, or do not, there is no 'try'." You may recognize the words of Yoda here (from the original Star Wars movies). I have adopted this idea for a variety of reasons, the main of which is the notion that I want to give my all to what I do.

When using "try", the focus is on the operative word of the sentence and what that word means. Therefore, rather than saying I will fix a car or clean dishes, it's about how I will "try". Instead of expressing clearly what I want as the outcome, I water it down. I'm not 'going to get my homework done', I'm just going to do what I want and the rest will wait. I'll 'try' to make it on time, 'try' to be nice, or 'try' to help someone. In the end, it doesn't matter whether I actually succeed or help, just that I've 'tried'. As long as I even thought about doing the thing, it can count as a try. As long as I set the bar to that level, I barely even need take action.

This pattern admits fear (possibly an incapacitating subconscious fear) of failure or commitment. Instead of definitely stating to another person that I will do this thing, and accept the consequences of not doing it, I will let myself "off the hook" by only setting the expectation of 'trying'. I don't recall anyone saying they would "try to go to the store' or 'try to buy groceries", they just say "I'm going to the store." The point being, if it's commonplace, we feel comfortable fully committing to 'doing'. However, when it requires effort or is unusual, we resort to 'trying'. I recognize that I'm not doing the thing as well as a professional; every skill takes practice. However, part of learning to ride a bike is falling off.

Finally, part of this is about clarity and direct communication. I see using 'try' as a way to avoid saying "no". This can be a conflict-avoidance technique, where I risk discomfiting another. I'm not advocating for conflict-seeking, rather that we and others accept and navigate rejection. By claiming that I will fulfill a request ("I'll try"), I falsely let the other person believe that it will be done. I know I don't have the time, but I want to please the other person, and so I say the words. However, at some point the work has to be done, and they've relied on me and no one else to accomplish it. Because I only committed to "trying", I can claim that I fulfilled my end of the bargain, even though the other person still needs their task done. They have less time to find this other helper, and likely will pay a higher price in some way for my delaying them. If I had been upfront at first, and said "no", they could have found someone else immediately.

There is nothing wrong with being unwilling or unable to do something. There is something undesirable about misrepresenting my intentions.

The Factory Model of Humans

There seems to be a notion – bolstered by the ubiquitous "self-help industry" – that our beliefs are our only limits. As if there is a standard, set point, or style that every person can attain or adopt. The thinking seems to be that success is within everyone's reach, if only they follow the "[insert number here] simple steps to success". Meaning that by emulating them, we can become (or achieve the results of) the person we envy or admire. I do not mean to discuss here the issues of lack or perceived deficit individuals judge in themselves, that is for another time. The focus of this post is on the means to improve, not the drive to do so.

The above thinking approaches people with the attitude that we can "cut and paste" talents and abilities. That if we adopt the tendencies of others, then we can be like them and experience the same success, lifestyle, or even livelihood. It is both the 'quick-fix' and the 'outside agency' parts of this attitude that are troublesome here. Let me address each separately.

First, the short-cutting of experience. It is an understandable desire, to cut out hours of practice or exploration in order to reach the conclusion. The idea to eliminate the unnecessary middle ground of practice and failure; to jump directly to the "right solution". However, it is misguided - as there is no such thing. I suspect that the results may only be successful because of the experience and intuition developed by the explorer. It is especially difficult for people to explicate their internal processes, as demonstrated by the need for study of elite athletes to understand what makes them effective. At any rate, the answer to this problem does not solve all those to come; it is necessary to be prepared to tackle them as well, and that requires a great deal of experience.

Second, that the solution comes from someone else, rather than from within. This is a true problem, as it redirects the power from 'me' to 'the other'. Instead of building confidence in myself and my ability to find answers, it builds reliance on another. The next time I come up against adversity, have I built up resilience and capacity to overcome, or do I need to return to the fountain of wisdom that I used last time? The answer is evident when the gurus only answer one question in a book and require a subscription to tackle more.

Ultimately, this model doesn't fit with human nature, which is fractious and diverse. Yes, I (and you) can learn, change, and grow; that does not mean we will (or can) do so in the same ways. In fact, it may be important that we do not. Leaving that aside, can we or should we get the same results the same way? Is it beneficial to have a success "formula"? I take the large proportion of divorces as evidence of needing to find one's own way. There is certainly no shortage of people who offer advice to married couples, and yet the divorce rate has remained static for decades. Instead, there are likely only a few "universal" constants, while the rest are open to interpretation and personalization.