I believe the "right" to privacy is synonymous with liberty. Privacy is not a natural right, except to the extent you can keep your thoughts to yourself. It is a civil right, though, a limited government should be restrained from invading one's privacy. A society that offers no privacy cannot offer liberty, if you ask me.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Well if you cannot keep your thoughts to yourself technologically then are you an individual anymore?
If I am still in control of my thoughts I think I am still an individual. If my thoughts are compelled I would not be. If one's thoughts cannot be kept private there would be a measure of compulsion just knowing they are publicly exposed due to avoiding persecution.
You don't control your thoughts (subconscious). You control your actions.
I do control my conscious thoughts, however.
Disagree. Right to privacy is not equal to liberty. Liberty is the right to chose whether to spread your thoughts or keep them to yourself without any negative effects after your choice. All the rest seems to be correct.
No, not correct. Liberty doesn't offer you protection from negative effects when you express yourself. It does mean you aren't to be prosecuted, or persecuted by the government, but other free people enjoying liberty are free to persecute you for taking a position. And the right to privacy is exactly that choice you mentioned, to reveal or not. However, once you have chosen to reveal you have lost the "right" to control it, so the best we can ask is that the government be prevented from collecting, or pursuing your private data.