Privacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Privacy (in Latin privatus 'separated from the rest, deprived of sth, esp. office, participation in the government', from privo 'to deprive') is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves and thereby reveal themselves selectively. The boundaries and content of what is considered private differ among cultures and individuals, but share basic common themes. Privacy is sometimes related to anonymity, the wish to remain unnoticed or unidentified in the public realm. When something is private to a person, it usually means there is something within them that is considered inherently special or personally sensitive. The degree to which private information is exposed therefore depends on how the public will receive this information, which differs between places and over time. Privacy can be seen as an aspect of security — one in which trade-offs between the interests of one group and another can become particularly clear.

The right against unsanctioned invasion of privacy by the government, corporations or individuals is part of many countries' privacy laws, and in some cases, constitutions. Almost all countries have laws which in some way limit privacy; an example of this would be law concerning taxation, which normally require the sharing of information about personal income or earnings. In some countries individual privacy may conflict with freedom of speech laws and some laws may require public disclosure of information which would be considered private in other countries and cultures. Privacy may be voluntarily sacrificed, normally in exchange for perceived benefits and very often with specific dangers and losses, although this is a very strategic view of human relationships. Academics who are economists, evolutionary theorists, and research psychologists describe revealing privacy as a 'voluntary sacrifice', where sweepstakes or competitions are involved. In the business world, a person may give personal details (often for advertising purposes) in order to enter a gamble of winning a prize. Information which is voluntarily shared and is later stolen or misused can lead to identity theft.

The concept of privacy is most often associated with Western culture, English and North American in particular. According to some researchers, the concept of privacy sets Anglo-American culture apart even from other Western European cultures such as French or Italian.^[1] The concept is not universal and remained virtually unknown in some cultures until recent times. A word "privacy" is sometimes regarded as untranslatable^[2] by linguists. Many languages lack a specific word for "privacy". Such languages either use a complex description to translate the term (such as Russian combine meaning of уединение - solitude, секретность - secrecy, and частная жизнь - private life) or borrow English "privacy" (as Indonesian Privasi or Italian la privacy)^[2].

Contents 1 Types of privacy 1.1 Physical 1.2 Informational 1.3 Organizational 2 History of privacy 2.1 Privacy and technology 2.2 Cases Regarding Location Privacy 3 Philosophy of privacy 3.1 An individual right 3.2 A collective value and a human right 4 Privacy protection 4.1 Free market versus consumer protection approaches 4.2 Privacy law 5 See also 6 References 7 Further reading 8 External links

[edit] Types of privacy

The term "privacy" means many things in different contexts. Different people, cultures, and nations have a wide variety of expectations about how much privacy a person is entitled to or what constitutes an invasion of privacy.

[edit] Physical

Physical privacy could be defined as preventing "intrusions into one's physical space or solitude"^[3] This would include such concerns as:

• preventing intimate acts or one's body from being seen by others for the purpose of modesty; apart from being dressed this can be achieved by walls, fences, privacy screens, cathedral glass, partitions between urinals, by being far away from others, on a bed by a bed sheet or a blanket, when changing clothes by a towel, etc.; to what extent these measures also prevent acts being heard varies
• video, as aptly named graphics, or intimate acts, behaviors or body part
• preventing unwelcome searching of one's personal possessions
• preventing unauthorized access to one's home or vehicle
• medical privacy, the right to make fundamental medical decisions without governmental coercion or third party review, most widely applied to questions of contraception

An example of the legal basis for the right to physical privacy would be the US Fourth Amendment, which guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures",^[4]. Most countries have laws regarding trespassing and property rights also determine the right of physical privacy.

Physical privacy may be a matter of cultural sensitivity, personal dignity, or shyness. There may also be concerns about safety, if for example one has concerns about being the victim of crime or stalking.^[5]

[edit] Informational

Data privacy refers to the evolving relationship between technology and the legal right to, or public expectation of privacy in the collection and sharing of data about one's self. Privacy concerns exist wherever uniquely identifiable data relating to a person or persons are collected and stored, in digital form or otherwise. In some cases these concerns refer to how data is collected, stored, and associated. In other cases the issue is who is given access to information. Other issues include whether an individual has any ownership rights to data about them, and/or the right to view, verify, and challenge that information.

Various types of personal information often come under privacy concerns. For various reasons, individuals may not wish for personal information such as their religion, sexual orientation, political affiliations, or personal activities to be revealed. This may be to avoid discrimination, personal embarrassment, or damage to one's professional reputation.

Financial privacy, in which information about a person's financial transactions is guarded, is important for the avoidance of fraud or identity theft. Information about a person's purchases can also reveal a great deal about that person's history, such as places they have visited, whom they have had contact with, products they use, their activities and habits, or medications they have used.

Internet privacy is the ability to control what information one reveals about oneself over the Internet, and to control who can access that information. These concerns include whether email can be stored or read by third parties without consent, or whether third parties can track the web sites someone has visited. Another concern is whether web sites which are visited collect, store, and possibly share personally identifiable information about users.

Medical privacy allows a person to keep their medical records from being revealed to others. This may be because they have concern that it might affect their insurance coverage or employment. Or it may be because they would not wish for others to know about medical or psychological conditions or treatment which would be embarrassing. Revealing medical data could also reveal other details about one's personal life (such as about one's sexual activity for example).

Sexual privacy prevents a person from being forced to carry a pregnancy to term and enables individuals to acquire and use contraceptives and safe sex supplies and information without community or legal review

Political privacy has been a concern since voting systems emerged in ancient times. The secret ballot is the simplest and most widespread measure to ensure that political views are not known to anyone other than the original voter — it is nearly universal in modern democracy, and considered a basic right of citizenship. In fact even where other rights of privacy do not exist, this type of privacy very often does.

[edit] Organizational

Governments agencies, corporations, and other organizations may desire to keep their activities or secrets from being revealed to other organizations or individuals. Such organizations may implement various security practices in order to prevent this. Organizations may seek legal protection for their secrets. For example, a government administration may be able to invoke executive privilege^[6] or declares certain information to be classified, or a corporation might attempt to protect trade secrets.^[4]

[edit] History of privacy

[edit] Privacy and technology

As technology has advanced, the way in which privacy is protected and violated has changed with it. In the case of some technologies, such as the printing press or the Internet, the increased ability to share information can lead to new ways in which privacy can be breached. It is generally agreed ^[7]that the first publication advocating privacy in the United States was the article by Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harvard L.R. 193 (1890), that was written largely in response to the increase in newspapers and photographs made possible by printing technologies. ^[8]

New technologies can also create new ways to gather private information. For example, in the U.S. it was thought that heat sensors intended to be used to find marijuana growing operations would be acceptable. However in 2001 in Kyllo v. United States (533 U.S. 27) it was decided that thermal imaging devices that can reveal previously unknown information without a warrant does indeed constitute a violation of privacy.^[9]

Generally the increased ability to gather and send information has had negative implications for retaining privacy. As large scale information systems become more common, there is so much information stored in many databases worldwide that an individual has no way of knowing of or controlling all of the information about themselves that others may have access to. Such information could potentially be sold to others for profit and/or be used for purposes not known to the individual of which the information is about. The concept of information privacy has become more significant as more systems controlling more information appear. Also the consequences of a violation of privacy can be more severe. Privacy law in many countries has had to adapt to changes in technology in order to address these issues and maintain people's rights to privacy as they see fit. But the existing global privacy rights framework has also been criticized as incoherent and inefficient. Proposals such as the APEC Privacy Framework have emerged which set out to provide the first comprehensive legal framework on the issue of global data privacy. ^[10]

[edit] Cases Regarding Location Privacy

United States v. Knotts

In the case of United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983), ^[11] some say that privacy was invaded by the use of a radio transmitter without a warrant.

A person defined by the name Armstrong was thought to be making drugs. Armstrong is a former employee of 3M in St. Paul, MN and was fired for stealing chemicals that could be used for making drugs. He then began purchasing these chemicals from another company, Hawkins Chemical Co. in Minneapolis, MN. Officers got the company to put a beeper in a chloroform container. When Armstrong came to pick up his purchase, the officers followed his vehicle with the aid of the beeper to a private cabin in Shell Lake, Wisconsin. The officers observed this cabin for three consecutive days and obtained a search warrant. They raided the cabin and found the chloroform along with a full clandestine drug laboratory, $10,000 worth of equipment, and 14 pounds of amphetamine.

Though this is thought to violate the Fourth Amendment, the court found that it does not under the circumstances in this case. The officers involved used the beeper in the same way someone would follow a car in public. Anyone is able to follow a car in public without a warrant since there is no expectation of privacy on public roads. The beeper was just used to follow the car to a cabin in Wisconsin. The beeper was in no way providing the officers information about what was going on inside the cabin. Since police had visually observed the activity and used their sensory technology in a way that was similar to visually monitoring, their actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

The respondent and two co-conspirators were charged with conspiracy to manufacture controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 and sentenced to 5 years in prison.

This case began on December 6, 1982 and the final court decision was on March 2, 1983.

United States v. Karo

In United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984), ^[12], DEA agents installed a beeper in a can of ether that was sold to suspects who were believed to be using the ether to extract cocaine from clothing. The beeper was used to monitor the whereabouts of ether as it was transported to and from commercial storage facilities, as well as the suspects' houses. This information, along with other means of gathering intelligence, was used to obtain a search warrant for one of the houses. It was ruled that if the probable cause was based solely on the information determined from the tracking of the beeper inside the house then the warrant would be deemed invalid, but there was sufficient evidence obtained legally (outside the house) for probable cause. Thus the warrant was deemed valid.

U.S. v. Garcia

In United States v. Garcia, 474 F.3d 994 ,^[13] the police were tipped of that Garcia, a freshly released prisoner charged with methamphetamine charges, was planning to start producing the drug again. Once they received surveillance footage from a store showing Garcia purchasing supplies used in the production they felt they had enough suspicion to start tracking him. When they started looking for Garcia’s vehicle they found it parked on a public street where they then attached a GPS tracking device. Once they retrieved the tracker they noticed that it traveled to a large tract of land several times. When police went to the property they received permission from the owner to search the land and they found ingredients and equipment used to manufacture methamphetamine. While the police were at the piece of land Garcia arrived in his vehicle when later searched contained more supplies for manufacturing. The police did not obtain a warrant to place the tracker but the district judge found that they had reasonable suspicion that Garcia was involved in criminal activity. It was argued that they more than probable cause that a search would turn up evidence and would need a warrant to do it. Claiming that placing the tracker on the car constituted a seizure of the vehicle. But since the vehicles performance, appearance, or capacity was not affected by the tracker there was no seizure.

Wisconsin v. Sveum

In Wisconsin v. Sveum, 769 N.W.2d 53 (2009), ^[14] Sveum was convicted of stalking Jamie Johnson and was imprisoned for crimes against. In 1999, while being detained in prison, Sveum’s sister helped him continue to stalk Johnson. The stalking did not stop in 2002 after Sveum’s release. In 2003, Johnson reported to the police that she believed she was again being stalked by Sveum. It was not until then that police obtained a warrant authorizing them to attach a GPS device to Sveum’s car in an effort to track where he was going. It was because of this that police were able to find more evidence to incriminate Sveum. Sveum fought to suppress evidence that was obtained from the GPS, but the court denied all motions, a jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to seven years and six months in prison followed by five years of extended supervision.

Sveum did not disagree with the fact that no law was broken when the device was used to monitor public travel, he did however argue that the warrant was too broad and his rights were still violated once the device was used to monitor his whereabouts in private locations. The courts disregarded all of Sveum’s arguments based almost solely upon the precedences set by United Stated v. Knotts and United States v. Karo. Specifically, the courts stated that since this device was used to divulge travel information that would otherwise be available to the public, no fourth amendment violation occurred. Furthermore, the GPS signal showed nothing of Sveum’s specific whereabouts once he had entered private property- only his path to and from specific locations. Even if a fourth amendment violation had occurred while on private property, there was no adequate reason as to why all GPS information should be thrown out. The movement to and from various properties and locations would still be available to the public and therefore obtainable by other warrantless means.

People v. Weaver

In People v. Weaver, 12 N.Y.3d 443, 445 (2009), ^[15] police attached what is know as a Q-Ball (operates in conjunction with numerous satellites) to the defendants van without a search warrant. The Q-Ball readings indicated the speed of the van and pinpointed it's location within 30 feet.

It was not clear from the records why defendant was placed under surveillance however, he was eventually charged with and tried in a single proceeding for crimes relating to two separate burglaries. The surveillance of the van put defendant at the two burglaries locations at the time of the crimes. Testimonies from one witness directly linked defendant to the K-Mart break in. Jury convicted defendant (Scott Weaver) on two counts relating to the K-Mart burglary. He was acquitted of the counts to the meat market burglary. The majority rejected defendants argument that his fourth amendment rights had been violated by the warrent-less placement and use of the GPS, and found that he had no greater right to relief under the state constitution. Defendant had a reduced expectation of privacy on the exterior of his vehicle. Dissent felt evidence should be suppressed based not on fourth amendment violations, but on violation of corresponding rights under the state constitution-stating that citizens “have a reasonable expectation that their every move will not be continuously and indefinitely monitored by a technical device without their knowledge, except where a warrant has been issued on probable cause.”

Commonwealth v. Connolly

In Commonwealth v. Connolly 454 Mass. 800, 832 (2009), ^[16] police were informed by multiple sources that Connolly was trafficking cocaine from his supplier in New York to his home town in Massachusetts. Police obtained a warrant to attach a GPS unit to Connolly’s vehicle, and subsequently used information obtained from the GPS to obtain a search warrant to search Connolly’s minivan. Approximately four ounces of cocaine were confiscated from Connolly’s vehicle, and he was charged with drug trafficking in the state of Massachusetts. Connolly motioned for a suppression of the evidence in his case, claiming that authorities utilized data that was obtained from the GPS after the warrant had expired.

Prior to examining whether the warrant was valid, the state decided to determine whether a warrant was necessary for location tracking. The court determined that, since installation of the device required police entry into the vehicle for one hour, as well as use of the vehicle’s electrical system, the GPS installation was ruled a seizure. Evidence for a seizure was also found in the use of Connolly’s personal vehicle against him. Interestingly, Massachusetts was the first state to find the installation of a tracking device to be a seizure. Therefore, the state of Massachusetts ruled that a common-law warrant is required to track the location of a person using technological means.

In addition, it was found that since as the courts ruled location tracking as a seizure rather than a search, the court concluded that “GPS warrants are issued under the common-law authority of the courts, and looked to G.L. c. 272, sec. 99 I 2 to find a 15-day surveillance period for wire communications.” Therefore, the court imposed a 15-day monitoring period for such common-law warrants as those issued for GPS tracking.

[edit] Philosophy of privacy

This section requires expansion with: information from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ("Views on the Meaning and Value of Privacy", "Critiques of Privacy").

Privacy uses the theory of natural rights, and generally responds to new information and communication technologies. In North America, Warren and Brandeis’ assertion that privacy is the “right to be let alone” (Warren & Brandeis, 1890) focuses on protecting individuals. This citation was a response to recent technological developments, such as photography, and sensationalist journalism. Warren and Brandeis declared that information which was previously hidden and private was now shouted from the rooftops. Privacy rights are inherently intertwined with information technology. For example, Olmstead's famous dissent was made in 1928, when he wrote 'Subtler and more far-reaching means of invading privacy have become available to the Government. Discovery and invention have made it possible for the Government, by means far more effective than stretching upon the rack, to obtain disclosure in court of what is whispered in the closet.' At that time, telephones were often community assets, with shared party lines and the potentially nosey human operators. By the time of Katx, in 1967, telephones had become personal devices with lines not shared across homes and switching was electro-mechanical. In the 1970’s, new computing and recording technologies began to raise concerns about privacy, resulting in the Fair Information Practice Principles.

Privacy can be understood as an individual right: to control the communication of personal information, and as a property right. As a property right, data are alienable and thus all privacy rights can be lost. On the internet today, we live under a property rights regime. Privacy is also described as a collective value and a human right. A synthesis between these two types of understanding may be achieved by exposing the problem of political power as related to privacy or personal integrity, freedom of speech, rule of law, and ethics, where the clash between privacy and security, supposedly mediated by participatory practices, portrays in terms of political science a fruitless and hopeless clash between socialist and liberal ideologies which lack a "vertical" spiritual dimension. All this is ultimately related also to the issue of accuracy of information, seen as a measure of the risk of misunderstanding and misuse of such information. The individual right to control the communication of personal information must then be conceived also as the social and political right to influence the original build-up and creation of information which can influence the life of the individual.^[17]

[edit] An individual right

Alan Westin believes that new technologies alter the balance between privacy and disclosure, and that privacy rights may limit government surveillance to protect democratic processes. Westin defines privacy as "the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others". Westin describes four states of privacy: solitude, intimacy, anonymity, reserve. These states must balance participation against norms:

Each individual is continually engaged in a personal adjustment process in which he balances the desire for privacy with the desire for disclosure and communication of himself to others, in light of the environmental conditions and social norms set by the society in which he lives. - Alan Westin, Privacy and Freedom, 1968^[18]

Under liberal democratic systems, privacy creates a space separate from political life, and allows personal autonomy, while ensuring democratic freedoms of association and expression.

David Flaherty believes networked computer databases pose threats to privacy. He develops 'data protection' as an aspect of privacy, which involves "the collection, use, and dissemination of personal information". This concept forms the foundation for fair information practices used by governments globally. Flaherty forwards an idea of privacy as information control, "[i]ndividuals want to be left alone and to exercise some control over how information about them is used" ^[19].

Richard Posner and Lawrence Lessig focus on the economic aspects of personal information control. Posner criticizes privacy for concealing information, which reduces market efficiency. For Posner, employment is selling oneself in the labour market, which he believes is like selling a product. Any 'defect' in the 'product' that is not reported is fraud ^[20]. For Lessig, privacy breaches online can be regulated through code and law. Lessig claims "the protection of privacy would be stronger if people conceived of the right as a property right", and that "individuals should be able to control information about themselves" ^[21]. Economic approaches to privacy make communal conceptions of privacy difficult to maintain.

[edit] A collective value and a human right

There have been attempts to reframe privacy as a fundamental human right, whose social value is an essential component in the functioning of democratic societies. Additional ways of thinking about privacy have been explored by researchers largely outside of the field of law using various approaches that work towards a concept of privacy beyond individual liberalism.

Amitai Etzioni suggests a communitarian approach to privacy. This requires a shared moral culture for establishing social order ^[22]. Etzioni believes that "[p]rivacy is merely one good among many others"^[23], and that technological effects depend on community accountability and oversight (ibid). He claims that privacy laws only increase government surveillance ^[24].

Priscilla Regan believes that individual concepts of privacy have failed philosophically and in policy. She supports a social value of privacy with three dimensions: shared perceptions, public values, and collective components. Shared ideas about privacy allows freedom of conscience and diversity in thought. Public values guarantee democratic participation, including freedoms of speech and association, and limits government power. Collective elements describe privacy as collective good that cannot be divided. Regan's goal is to strengthen privacy claims in policy making: "if we did recognize the collective or public-good value of privacy, as well as the common and public value of privacy, those advocating privacy protections would have a stronger basis upon which to argue for its protection"^[25].

Leslie Regan Shade argues that the human right to privacy is necessary for meaningful democratic participation, and ensures human dignity and autonomy. Privacy depends on norms for how information is distributed, and if this is appropriate. Violations of privacy depend on context. The human right to privacy has precedent in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."^[26] Shade believes that privacy must be approached from a people-centered perspective, and not through the marketplace.^[27]

[edit] Privacy protection

[edit] Free market versus consumer protection approaches

Approaches to privacy can, broadly, be divided into two categories: free market, and consumer protection.^[28] In a free market approach, commercial entities are largely allowed to do what they wish, with the expectation that consumers will choose to do business with corporations that respect their privacy to a desired degree. If some companies are not sufficiently respectful of privacy, they will lose market share. Such an approach may be limited by lack of competition in a market, by enterprises not offering privacy options favorable to the user, or by lack of information about actual privacy practices. Claims of privacy protection made by companies may be difficult for consumers to verify, except when they have already been violated.

In a consumer protection approach, in contrast, it is acknowledged that individuals may not have the time or knowledge to make informed choices, or may not have reasonable alternatives available. In support of this view, Jensen and Potts showed that most privacy policies are above the reading level of the average person .^[29] Therefore, this approach advocates greater government definition and enforcement of privacy standards.

[edit] Privacy law

Privacy law is the area of law concerning the protecting and preserving of privacy rights of individuals. While there is no universally accepted privacy law among all countries, some organizations promote certain concepts be enforced by individual countries. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 12, states:

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

For Europe, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right to respect for private and family life, one's home and correspondence. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has developed a large body of jurisprudence defining this fundamental right to privacy.^{[citation needed]} The European Union requires all member states to legislate to ensure that citizens have a right to privacy, through directives such as the 1995 Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of personal data. It is regulated in the United Kingdom by the Data Protection Act 1998 and in France data protection is also monitored by the CNIL, a governmental body which must authorize legislation concerning privacy before them being enacted.

In the United Kingdom, it is not possible to bring an action for invasion of privacy. An action may be brought under another tort (usually breach of confidence) and privacy must then be considered under EC law. In the UK, it is sometimes a defense that disclosure of private information was in the public interest.^[30]

Concerning privacy laws of the United States, privacy is not guaranteed per se by the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States has found that other guarantees have "penumbras" that implicitly grant a right to privacy against government intrusion, for example in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). In the United States, the right of freedom of speech granted in the First Amendment has limited the effects of lawsuits for breach of privacy. Privacy is regulated in the U.S. by the Privacy Act of 1974, and various state laws.

Canadian privacy law is governed federally by multiple acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Privacy Act (Canada). Mostly this legislation concerns privacy infringement by government organizations. Data privacy was first addressed with the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, and provincial-level legislation also exists to account for more specific cases personal privacy protection against commercial organizations.

In Australia there is the Privacy Act 1988.

[edit] See also

• Civil liberties
• Digital identity
• Model release
• Nineteen Eighty-Four
• Personality rights
• Privacy enhancing technologies
• Privacy policy
• Private sphere
• Profiling practices
• Publicy
• Sousveillance
• Surveillance

[edit] References

[edit] Further reading

• Judith Wagner DeCew, 1997, In Pursuit of Privacy: Law, Ethics, and the Rise of Technology, Ithaca: Cornell University Press
• Ruth Gavison, "Privacy and the Limits of the Law," in Michael J. Gorr and Sterling Harwood, eds., Crime and Punishment: Philosophic Explorations (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 2000, formerly Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1996), paperback, 552 pages, pp. 46–68.
• Judith Jarvis Thomson, "The Right to Privacy," in Michael J. Gorr and Sterling Harwood, eds., Crime and Punishment: Philosophic Explorations (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 2000, formerly Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1995), 552 pages, pp. 34–46.
• A. Westin, 1967, Privacy and Freedom, New York: Atheneum
• Robert Ellis Smith, 2004, "Ben Franklin's Web Site, Privacy and Curiosity from Plymouth Rock to the Internet," Providence: Privacy Journal
• Bruce Schneier, Privacy in the Age of Persistence

[edit] External links

• Evergreen collection of regualtory / academic / business interviews and independent objective analysis
• Media Law Web (UK), Confidentiality Law and Privacy
• privacy.org, a service of the Electronic Privacy Information Center
• Privacy at the Open Directory Project
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry
• Privacy Commission

v • d • e Privacy Principles Expectation of privacy Privacy law Canada, USA, European Union, England Areas Consumer, Medical, Workplace Information privacy Law, Financial, Internet, Political, Personally identifiable information (Personal identifiers), Privacy enhancing technologies Advocacy Organizations ACLU, Center for Democracy and Technology, CPSR, Future of Privacy Forum, EPIC, EFF, Privacy International, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse See also Anonymity, Data security, Identity theft, Surveillance (en mass, state), Human rights, Personality rights

v • d • e Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights   General principles Article 1: Freedom, Egalitarianism, Dignity and Brotherhood Article 2: Universality of rights   International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 1 and 2: Right to freedom from discrimination · Article 3: Right to life, liberty and security of person · Article 4: Freedom from slavery · Article 5: Freedom from torture and cruel and unusual punishment · Article 6: Right to personhood · Article 7: Equality before the law · Article 8: Right to effective remedy from the law · Article 9: Freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention and exile · Article 10: Right to a fair trial · Article 11.1: Presumption of innocence · Article 11.2: Prohibition of retrospective law · Article 12: Right to privacy · Article 13: Freedom of movement · Article 14: Right of asylum · Article 15: Right to a nationality · Article 16: Right to marriage and family life · Article 17: Right to property · Article 18: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion · Article 19: Freedom of opinion and expression · Article 20.1: Freedom of assembly · Article 20.2: Freedom of association · Article 21.1: Right to participation in government · Article 21.2: Right of equal access to public office · Article 21.3: Right to universal suffrage   International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Article 1 and 2: Right to freedom from discrimination · Article 22: Right to social security · Article 23.1: Right to work · Article 23.2: Right to equal pay for equal work · Article 23.3: Right to just remuneration · Article 23.4: Right to join a trade union · Article 24: Right to rest and leisure · Article 25.1: Right to an adequate standard of living · Article 25.2: Right to special care and assistance for mothers and children · Article 26.1: Right to education · Article 26.2: Human rights education · Article 26.3: Right to choice of education · Article 27.1: Right to participate in culture · Article 27.2: Right to intellectual property   Context, limitations and duties Article 28: Social order · Article 29.1: Social responsibility  · Article 29.2: Limitations of human rights · Article 29.3: The supremacy of the purposes and principles of the United Nations Article 30: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. Category:Human rights · Human rights portal

v • d • e Particular human rights Civil and political Freedom from discrimination · Right to life · Right to die · Security of person · Liberty · Freedom of movement · Freedom from slavery · Personhood · Right to bear arms · Equality before the law · Adequate remedy · Freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention · Freedom from torture · Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment · Right to a fair trial · Presumption of innocence · Right of asylum · Nationality · Freedom from exile · Privacy · Freedom of thought and conscience · Freedom of religion · Freedom of expression (freedom of information) · Freedom of assembly · Freedom of association · Right to protest · Universal suffrage · Marriage · Family life Economic, social and cultural Labor rights · Fair remuneration · Equal pay for equal work · Trade union membership · Right to social security · Leisure and rest · Right to work · Right to property (and intellectual) · Right to culture · Right to public participation · Right to education · Right to adequate standard of living · Right to housing · Right to development · Right to health · Right to healthcare · Right to water · Right to food · Right of return Reproductive Family planning · Reproductive health · Abortion · Freedom from involuntary female genital cutting War and conflict Civilian · Combatant · Freedom from genocide · Prisoner of war Philosophy & rights Negative and positive rights · Claim rights and liberty rights · Freedom versus license · Desert (philosophy) · Social contract · Meritocracy · Equality before the law Note: What is considered a human right is controversial and not all the topics listed are universally accepted as human rights.