#righttoprivacy

Exclusive: Meta employees launch protest against mouse-tracking tech at US offices

Conclusion In Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right: A Legal Perspective, we finally learn the answer to this critical question, "What Has the Supreme Court Said About the Right to Privacy?" The historic ruling on this aspect by the Supreme Court of India has been rendered as a result of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India case. With such an historic verdict, Indian constitution came into the modern era wherein privacy became part of life and personal liberty under Article 21. Now, with personal data and identities at stake due to rapid technological advancements in this digital age, this judgement would certainly play a significant role in the future.

Dayton suspends Flock license plate readers, says data used for immigration enforcement

Meta to Shut Down Instagram End-to-End Encrypted Chat Support Starting May 2026

Philosophically, the right to privacy emerges from Enlightenment ideals of personal liberty, autonomy, and the sanctity of the individual. Thinkers like John Locke and John Stuart Mill defended the private sphere as essential for self-realization and moral agency. Mill, in On Liberty (1859), stressed the need for a domain of liberty where individuals are sovereign—an idea that closely resonates with modern understandings of privacy. Moreover, Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics highlight the intrinsic worth of the individual, implying that any invasion of one’s private life treats the person as a means to an end rather than an end in themselves. Privacy, in this light, is not merely a utilitarian good but a moral imperative. The home, the body, thoughts, beliefs, and intimate relations become spaces of moral inviolability. III. Historical Development and Legal Recognition The right to privacy, as a formal legal principle, is relatively modern, yet it draws upon a long history of cultural, legal, and philosophical norms concerning personal autonomy and sanctity. Its legal evolution is a response to shifting societal structures, technologies, and concepts of individuality. What began as an implied safeguard within broader legal traditions gradually evolved into a distinct and enforceable right, culminating in its recognition at national and international levels. This historical arc can be best understood through a layered analysis of its development in common law, constitutional interpretation, and international human rights law. A. Pre-Modern Roots and Early Norms Before the right to privacy was conceptualized as such, ancient and medieval legal systems provided indirect protections. For example: - Roman Law recognized domus (the home) as sacrosanct, barring intrusion without just cause. - In Judeo-Christian ethics, the private sphere—especially the family and the conscience—was often treated as sacred, a domain beyond the reach of the collective. - Islamic jurisprudence (Sharia) emphasized the inviolability of the home and prohibited spying or undue interference with others’ private affairs (tajassus). These notions were deeply embedded in the idea that personal spaces—physical or moral—ought to be shielded from both public scrutiny and state intrusion. However, these protections were not yet defined in terms of a legal “right to privacy.” B. Emergence in Anglo-American Common Law The turning point in the formal recognition of privacy occurred in the 19th century, prompted by social and technological change. The Industrial Revolution, the rise of mass media, and increasing urbanization began to dissolve traditional boundaries between public and private life. In 1890, Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis published their landmark article, “The Right to Privacy” in the Harvard Law Review. Their argument arose in response to the intrusiveness of tabloid journalism and photographic technology. They proposed a legally enforceable “right to be let alone,” drawing upon tort principles of defamation and breach of confidence. While their work did not instantly create a new legal doctrine, it influenced later courts to develop tort-based privacy protections such as: - Intrusion upon seclusion - Public disclosure of private facts - False light - Appropriation of likeness In the early 20th century, U.S. state courts began to adopt elements of this theory, recognizing privacy as a tort right. However, a more profound legal transformation occurred with the incorporation of privacy into constitutional law, particularly in the United States. C. Constitutionalization of Privacy in the United States Although the U.S. Constitution contains no explicit right to privacy, the Supreme Court has derived such a right from various amendments, interpreting them as forming a “penumbra of rights” that protect personal liberty. - In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Court struck down a law banning contraceptive use by married couples, grounding its reasoning in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments. Justice William O. Douglas famously spoke of “zones of privacy” that are constitutionally protected. - This logic was extended in Roe v. Wade (1973) to cover reproductive autonomy and abortion rights. Privacy here served as a vehicle for broader substantive due process rights. - In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Court invalidated laws criminalizing same-sex intimacy, again invoking the constitutional right to privacy as part of personal liberty. However, this expansive privacy jurisprudence has faced backlash, most notably in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), where the Court overturned Roe, arguing that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion. This decision reflects a broader retrenchment in the judicial recognition of privacy as a substantive right, returning it to the political arena and state legislatures. D. Privacy in Other Constitutional Traditions Outside the United States, many constitutions contain explicit references to privacy: - Germany’s Basic Law (Grundgesetz), in Article 1 and Article 2, safeguards the dignity of the human person and personal freedom. German jurisprudence, especially through the Federal Constitutional Court, has robustly defended privacy in areas such as data protection, communication, and intimate life. - India’s Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), affirmed that the right to privacy is a fundamental right embedded in Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Indian Constitution. This judgment placed privacy at the heart of individual dignity, autonomy, and democracy in the digital age. - South Africa’s Constitution, among the most progressive in the world, includes explicit protections for privacy (Section 14), including protection against searches, surveillance, and data collection. Such constitutional provisions signal a global trend: privacy is increasingly viewed as an essential safeguard for democracy, pluralism, and human dignity, especially in diverse and technologically integrated societies. E. Privacy in International Human Rights Law The internationalization of privacy rights emerged in the post-WWII era, particularly through the establishment of the United Nations and regional human rights bodies. - Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) – Article 12 (1948): “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence…” - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – Article 17 (1966): This article replicates the UDHR’s privacy clause and mandates that states adopt legal safeguards against arbitrary or unlawful interferences. - European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – Article 8: This provision recognizes the right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence. The European Court of Human Rights has developed an extensive jurisprudence elaborating on the meaning of privacy, including protection from: - Government surveillance (Klass v. Germany), - Media intrusion (Von Hannover v. Germany), - Sexual orientation discrimination (Dudgeon v. United Kingdom), - Data retention and profiling (S. and Marper v. United Kingdom). - American Convention on Human Rights, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and other regional frameworks also recognize privacy, albeit with varying degrees of enforcement. - The GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) – Adopted by the European Union in 2016 and implemented in 2018, GDPR is arguably the most sophisticated legal instrument for informational privacy. It sets global standards for consent, transparency, data security, and user rights, influencing legislation worldwide. F. Contemporary Legislative Trends Today, countries across the globe are rapidly adopting privacy laws in response to digital threats and public demand: - Brazil’s LGPD (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados), - California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), - Canada’s PIPEDA, - Kenya’s Data Protection Act (2019), - India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act (2023). These laws vary in scope and strength but reflect the increasing consensus that privacy is not only a civil liberty but a necessary condition for dignity and participation in the digital age. The right to privacy has evolved from implicit norms to explicit legal guarantees. Its journey reflects humanity’s struggle to balance liberty and order, autonomy and authority, technological innovation and ethical restraint. While national legal systems offer diverse approaches, the trajectory is unmistakably toward universal recognition. Yet, legal recognition alone is insufficient; the right must be continually interpreted, defended, and refined in the face of evolving threats and shifting societal values. IV. Dimensions and Scope of the Right to Privacy The right to privacy is not monolithic; rather, it unfolds across multiple dimensions—each reflecting a particular aspect of human dignity, autonomy, and personal space. While these dimensions overlap and often interact, their legal and philosophical justifications differ. As society evolves, especially with digital transformation and global interconnectivity, the scope of these dimensions becomes both broader and more contested. This section delineates the principal domains of privacy protection: bodily, informational, territorial, decisional, and communicational, and explores their contemporary relevance and legal treatment. A. Bodily Privacy: The Inviolability of the Physical Self Definition and Scope: Bodily privacy refers to the individual’s right to control their own physical being—free from coercive interference, surveillance, or data extraction. This includes protection against: - Unconsented medical examinations or procedures, - Mandatory biometric data collection (e.g., fingerprints, facial scans, DNA), - State or corporate use of bodily data for identification, surveillance, or commercial exploitation. Legal Implications: - In Rochin v. California (1952), the U.S. Supreme Court held that forced stomach pumping violated “decency and fairness,” laying groundwork for bodily integrity as a constitutional principle. - Informed consent in medical law reflects bodily privacy, now protected by laws governing healthcare autonomy (e.g., HIPAA in the U.S., or the Oviedo Convention in Europe). Contemporary Relevance: Modern threats include neuro-monitoring, implantable technologies, and wearable sensors, raising questions about the future limits of bodily autonomy. The use of biometric data for national ID programs, surveillance, or workplace monitoring challenges traditional notions of the body as a private domain. B. Informational Privacy: Control Over Personal Data Definition and Scope: Informational privacy refers to the right of individuals to control the collection, use, disclosure, and storage of their personal data. This includes: - Identity and demographic data, - Financial records, - Online behavior and preferences, - Health and genetic information. Legal Frameworks: - The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the EU sets a high global standard for informational privacy, emphasizing data minimization, purpose limitation, and explicit consent. - The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) grants U.S. residents certain rights over how their data is collected and sold by businesses. Contemporary Challenges: - Surveillance capitalism, as theorized by Shoshana Zuboff, commodifies personal data, eroding consent and transparency. - AI and machine learning algorithms increasingly rely on massive datasets, which often include sensitive personal information. The opacity of these systems undermines individual control and accountability. - The “right to be forgotten”—emerging from European case law—exemplifies a tension between personal dignity and public memory in the digital age. C. Territorial Privacy: The Sanctity of Space Definition and Scope: Territorial privacy safeguards the integrity of physical spaces—primarily the home—from intrusion by the state, employers, or others. It includes: - Freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures, - Surveillance protections in one’s dwelling, - Privacy expectations in quasi-private spaces (hotel rooms, offices, vehicles). Jurisprudence and Protections: - The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a cornerstone for territorial privacy, requiring probable cause for searches. - The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has protected home privacy even in cases involving public safety (Niemietz v. Germany). Modern Contexts: - Smart homes and IoT devices (such as Alexa or Google Nest) pose complex questions: while physically inside the home, data may be collected and analyzed externally. - Remote work surveillance and employer monitoring of home-based employees blur the boundary between public and private spaces. D. Decisional Privacy: Autonomy in Personal Choices Definition and Scope: Decisional privacy encompasses the freedom to make fundamental life decisions without interference—especially regarding intimate matters like: - Sexual orientation and relationships, - Reproductive choices (abortion, contraception), - Parental rights and child-rearing, - Religious and philosophical convictions. Key Legal Developments: - Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and Roe v. Wade (1973) in the U.S. established a zone of privacy for family and reproductive decisions. - Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) recognized same-sex marriage as part of liberty and privacy interests under the U.S. Constitution. - In India, the Puttaswamy judgment (2017) elevated privacy to a fundamental right, framing it as integral to decisional autonomy in a modern democracy. Ongoing Debates: - Post-Roe jurisprudence questions the stability of decisional privacy in deeply polarized legal systems. - Religious exemptions, moral legislation, and state surveillance of reproductive choices are increasingly contentious, particularly in authoritarian regimes. E. Communicational Privacy: Confidentiality in Expression Definition and Scope: Communicational privacy ensures the right to communicate without interception or unauthorized access. It protects: - Postal correspondence, - Telephone conversations, - Emails, texts, and online messaging, - Encrypted digital interactions. Legal Frameworks: - The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) in the U.S. and Article 8 of the ECHR provide foundational protection. - The Council of Europe’s Convention 108 safeguards personal communication data across borders. Technological Pressures: - Governments justify mass interception and metadata collection in the name of national security, often bypassing or weakening legal safeguards. - Encryption technologies, while protecting users, have sparked disputes with law enforcement agencies who demand backdoor access. - Employer monitoring software now observes employee emails and chats, testing the limits of communicational privacy in professional settings. F. Intersections and Emerging Domains The dimensions outlined above are increasingly overlapping in complex ways: - A health-tracking app may collect bodily, informational, and decisional data simultaneously. - AI surveillance combines territorial, informational, and communicational intrusions. Read the full article

📖 Read more: https://www.mcolegals.in

EFF believe's police should know how surveillance tech works before unleashing it.

Seema Bhatnagar