View source for Module:Right to privacy

{{Short description|Legal tradition restraining actions threatening individual privacy}}
{{Redirect|The Right to Privacy|the law review article|The Right to Privacy (article)}}
{{Redirect|Invasion of privacy}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=May 2022}}

The '''right to privacy''' is an element of various legal traditions that intends to restrain [[governmental]] and private actions that threaten the [[privacy]] of individuals.<ref>"[http://www.privacilla.org/business/privacytorts.html The Privacy Torts] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170908230758/http://www.privacilla.org/business/privacytorts.html |date=2017-09-08 }}" (19 December 2000). Privacilla.org.</ref>{{failed verification|reason=Source addresses particular development in US law, lacking the universal perspective expressed in intro|date=October 2015}}<ref>{{cite web|url=http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/Brandeisprivacy.htm|title=Right to Privacy|website=faculty.uml.edu|access-date=31 March 2018}}</ref> Over 150 national constitutions mention the right to privacy.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.constituteproject.org/search?lang=en&key=privacy|title=Read about "Right to privacy" on Constitute|website=constituteproject.org|access-date=31 March 2018}}</ref> On 10 December 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] (UDHR), originally written to guarantee individual rights of everyone everywhere; while ''right to privacy'' does not appear in the document, many interpret this through Article 12, which states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."<ref>{{Cite web|last=Nations|first=United|title=Universal Declaration of Human Rights|url=https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights|access-date=30 May 2021|publisher=United Nations|language=en}}</ref>

Since the [[global surveillance disclosures (2013–present)|global surveillance disclosures]] of 2013, initiated by ex-[[NSA]] employee [[Edward Snowden]], the right to privacy has been a subject of international debate. Government agencies, such as the [[NSA]], [[FBI]], [[CIA]], [[R&AW]] and [[GCHQ]], have engaged in [[mass surveillance|mass]], [[global surveillance]]. Some current debates around the right to privacy include whether privacy can co-exist with the [[surveillance state|current capabilities]] of [[intelligence agency|intelligence agencies]] to access and analyze many details of an individual's life; whether or not the right to privacy is forfeited as part of the [[social contract]] to bolster defense against supposed terrorist threats; and whether threats of terrorism are a valid excuse to spy on the general population. Private sector actors can also threaten the right to privacy{{snd}}particularly technology companies, such as [[Amazon (company)|Amazon]], [[Apple Inc.|Apple]], [[Meta Platforms|Meta]], Google, [[Microsoft]], and [[Yahoo]] that use and collect [[personal data]]. These concerns have been strengthened by scandals, including the [[Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal]], which focused on [[Psychographics|psychographic]] company [[Cambridge Analytica]] which used personal data from Facebook to influence large groups of people.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://qz.com/1245049/the-cambridge-analytica-scandal-affected-87-million-people-facebook-says/|title=The Cambridge Analytica scandal affected nearly 40 million more people than we thought|last=Kozlowska|first=Hanna|website=Quartz|date=4 April 2018 |language=en|access-date=19 April 2019}}</ref>

==History==
The concept of a human ''"right to privacy"'' begins when the Latin word ''ius'' expanded from meaning "what is fair" to include "a right – an entitlement a person possesses to control or claim something," by the [[Decretum Gratiani]] in [[Bologna]], Italy in the 12th century.<ref name="SD">{{Cite web|url=https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/225567428.pdf|title=The Human Right to Privacy|author=James Griffin|publisher=San Diego Law Review|page=3|date=1 November 2007|volume=44|issue=4|access-date=29 September 2020}}</ref>

In the United States, an article in the 15 December 1890 issue of the ''[[Harvard Law Review]]'' entitled "[[The Right to Privacy (article)|The Right to Privacy]]," written by attorney [[Samuel D. Warren II]] and future U.S. Supreme Court Justice [[Louis Brandeis]], is often cited as the first explicit finding of a U.S. right to privacy. Warren II and Brandeis wrote that privacy is the "right to be let alone," and focused on protecting individuals. This approach was a response to recent technological developments of the time, such as photography and sensationalist journalism, also known as "[[yellow journalism]]."<ref name="Brandeis">{{cite journal |last1=Warren |first1=Samuel |last2=Brandeis |first2=Louis D. |year=1890 |title=The Right to Privacy |url=http://www.law.louisville.edu/library/collections/brandeis/node/225 |journal=[[Harvard Law Review]] |volume=4 |issue=5 |pages=193–220 |doi=10.2307/1321160 |jstor=1321160 |access-date=3 May 2022 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081023033917/http://www.law.louisville.edu/library/collections/brandeis/node/225 |archive-date=23 October 2008}}</ref>

Privacy rights are inherently intertwined with information technology. In his widely cited [[dissenting opinion]] in ''[[Olmstead v. United States]]'' (1928), Brandeis relied on thoughts he developed in the article "The Right to Privacy."<ref name=Brandeis/> In that dissent, he urged that personal privacy matters were more relevant to [[constitutional law]], going so far as to say that "the government was identified as a potential privacy invader." He writes, "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 potentially eavesdropping [[switchboard operator]]s. By the time of ''[[Katz v. United States|Katz]]'', in 1967, telephones had become personal devices with lines not shared across homes and switching was electro-mechanical. In the 1970s, new computing and recording technologies raised more concerns about privacy, resulting in the [[FTC Fair Information Practice|Fair Information Practice Principles]].

In recent years there have been few attempts to clearly and precisely define the "right to privacy."<ref>{{Cite web|last=Sharp|first=Tim|title=Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws|url=https://www.livescience.com/37398-right-to-privacy.html|access-date=7 November 2020|website=livescience.com|date=12 June 2013|language=en}}</ref>

===An individual right===
[[File:The artist's face behind his hand.jpg|thumb|"Don't take pictures of me", drawing school, Russia, 2021]]
[[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:

<blockquote>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<ref>Westin, A. (1968). ''Privacy and Freedom'' (Fifth ed.). New York.: Atheneum.</ref></blockquote>

Under liberal democratic systems, privacy creates a space separate from political life, and allows personal autonomy, while ensuring democratic [[Freedom of association|freedoms of association]] and [[Freedom of speech|expression]]. Privacy to individuals is the ability to behave, think, speak, and express ideas without the monitoring or surveillance of someone else. Individuals exercise their freedom of expression through attending political rallies and choosing to hide their identities online by using pseudo names.

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, "individuals want to be left alone and to exercise some control over how information about them is used".<ref>Flaherty, D. (1989). Protecting privacy in surveillance societies: The federal republic of Germany, Sweden, France, Canada, and the United States. Chapel Hill, U.S.: The University of North Carolina Press.</ref>

[[Marc Rotenberg]] has described the modern right to privacy as Fair Information Practices: "the rights and responsibilities associated with the collection and use of personal information." Rotenberg emphasizes that the allocation of rights are to the data subject and the responsibilities are assigned to the data collectors because of the transfer of the data and the asymmetry of information concerning data practices.<ref>Allen, A. & Rotenberg, M. (2016). ''Privacy Law and Society''. West Academic.{{page needed|date=April 2022}} {{ISBN?}}</ref>

[[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 labor market, which he believes is like selling a product. Any 'defect' in the 'product' that is not reported is fraud.<ref>, Posner, R. A. (1981). "The economics of privacy". ''[[The American Economic Review]]'', 71(2), 405–409.</ref> 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".<ref>Lessig, L. (2006). Code: Version 2.0. New York, U.S.: Basic Books.</ref> Economic approaches to privacy make communal conceptions of privacy difficult to maintain.

===A collective value and a human right===
There have been attempts to reframe privacy as a fundamental [[Human rights|human right]], whose social value is an essential component in the functioning of democratic societies.<ref>{{cite book|last=Johnson|first=Deborah|title=Ethical theory and business.|year=2009|publisher=Pearson/Prentice Hall|location=Upper Saddle River, NJ|isbn=978-0136126027|pages=428–442|edition=8th|author-link=Privacy|editor1=Beauchamp |editor2=Bowie |editor3=Arnold}}</ref>

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 [[Collectivism and individualism|collective]] components. Shared ideas about privacy allow 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 a 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".<ref>Regan, P. M. (1995). ''Legislating Privacy: Technology, social values, and public policy''. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. {{ISBN?}} {{page needed|date=April 2022}}</ref>

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. Shade believes that privacy must be approached from a people-centered perspective, and not through the marketplace.<ref>Shade, L. R. (2008). "Reconsidering the right to privacy in Canada". ''Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society'', 28(1), 80–91.</ref>

== Privacy laws in different countries ==
Privacy laws apply to both public and private sector actors.

=== Australia ===
{{see also|Privacy in Australian law}}
Australia does not have a constitutional right to privacy. However, the ''[[Privacy Act 1988]]'' ([[Commonwealth of Australia|Cth]]) provides a degree of protection over an individual's [[personally identifiable information]] and its usage by the government and large companies.<ref name="AU Research Note March 2005">{{citation|title=Do Australians have a legal right to privacy?|first=Morag|last=Donaldson|date=14 March 2005|access-date=14 November 2021|url=https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/prspub/CBHF6/upload_binary/cbhf64.pdf|work=[[Parliament of Australia]]}}</ref> The ''Privacy Act'' also outlines the 13 Australian Privacy Principles.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/australian-privacy-principles|title=Australian Privacy Principles|work=[[Office of the Australian Information Commissioner]]|access-date=14 November 2021|archive-date=14 November 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211114123208/https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/australian-privacy-principles|url-status=live}}</ref>

Australia also lacks a [[tort]] against [[invasion of privacy|invasions of privacy]]. In the 2001 case of {{cite court |litigants=[[Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd]]|vol=208|reporter=[[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]]|opinion=199| postscript=none }}, the [[High Court of Australia]] explained that there stood the possibility of "a tort identified as unjustified invasion of privacy",<ref name="ABC v Lenah Game Meats">{{cite court |litigants=Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd|vol=208|reporter=[[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]]|opinion=199|pinpoint=pg. 249|court=[[High Court of Australia]]|date=15 November 2001|quote=In the course of his judgment, Latham CJ rejected the proposition that under the head of nuisance the law recognised a right of privacy (232). But the decision does not stand for any proposition respecting the existence or otherwise of a tort identified as unjustified invasion of privacy.}}</ref> but that this case lacked the facts to establish it.<ref name="AU Research Note March 2005"/> Since 2001, there have been some state-based cases{{emdash}}namely the 2003 case {{cite court |litigants=Grosse v Purvis|reporter=QDC|opinion=151| postscript=none }}; and the 2007 case {{cite court |litigants=Doe v Australian Broadcasting Corporation|reporter=VCC|opinion=281| postscript=none }}{{emdash}}that attempted to establish a tortious invasion of privacy, but these cases were settled before decisions could be met. Further, they have received conflicting analyses by later cases.<ref>{{cite web|title=A common law action for breach of privacy in Australia?|date=27 March 2014|access-date=14 November 2021|work=[[Australian Law Reform Commission]]|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211114122126/https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/serious-invasions-of-privacy-in-the-digital-era-dp-80/3-overview-of-current-law/a-common-law-action-for-breach-of-privacy-in-australia/|archive-date=14 November 2021|url=https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/serious-invasions-of-privacy-in-the-digital-era-dp-80/3-overview-of-current-law/a-common-law-action-for-breach-of-privacy-in-australia/}}</ref>

=== Canada ===
{{main|Canadian privacy law}}

=== China ===
{{see also|Personal Information Protection Law of the People's Republic of China}}
The Constitution is the highest law in China. Privacy rights have been applied throughout China.<ref>Wang, Hao. ''Protecting Privacy in China: A Research on China's Privacy Standards and the Possibility of Establishing the Right to Privacy and the Information Privacy Protection Legislation in Modern China''. Heidelberg: Springer, 2011. Print.</ref> The Constitution provides direction for all states in China and it further stipulates that "all states must abide by and be held accountable for any violation of the Constitution and the law; the law specifically protects civil rights of a citizen's personal dignity and confidentiality of correspondence.'<ref>{{Cite web|last=Horsley|first=Jamie P.|date=29 January 2021|title=How will China's privacy law apply to the Chinese state?|url=https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-will-chinas-privacy-law-apply-to-the-chinese-state/|access-date=15 July 2021|website=Brookings|language=en-US}}</ref> China has a new standard and the first of its kind for the country coming into effect 1 January 2021, the Civil Code is the first of its kind sweeping law replacing all laws covering general provisions, real property, contracts, personality rights, marriage and family, inheritance, tort liability, and supplementary provisions.<ref>{{Cite web|title=The adoption of the Chinese Civil Code and its implications on contracts relating to China {{!}} Perspectives {{!}} Reed Smith LLP|url=https://www.reedsmith.com:443/en/perspectives/2020/06/the-adoption-of-the-chinese-civil-code-and-its-implications-on-contracts|access-date=16 July 2021|website=www.reedsmith.com|language=en}}</ref>

In many cases raised in the legal system, these rights have been overlooked as the courts have not treated each case with the same legal precedent for each case.  China deploys [[mass surveillance in China|mass surveillance]] on its population including through the use of [[closed-circuit television]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=The world's biggest surveillance system is growing—and so is the backlash |url=https://fortune.com/2020/11/03/china-surveillance-system-backlash-worlds-largest/ |access-date=2022-09-24 |website=Fortune |language=en}}</ref>

=== European Union ===
Compared to the United States, the European Union (EU) has more extensive data protection laws.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last1=Hoofnagle|first1=Chris Jay|last2=Sloot|first2=Bart van der|last3=Borgesius|first3=Frederik Zuiderveen|date=2 January 2019|title=The European Union general data protection regulation: what it is and what it means|journal=Information & Communications Technology Law|volume=28|issue=1|pages=65–98|doi=10.1080/13600834.2019.1573501|issn=1360-0834|hdl=11245.1/8a9b1909-1ce8-478f-b3fc-be5126911846|s2cid=86416362|url=https://dare.uva.nl/personal/pure/en/publications/the-european-union-general-data-protection-regulation-what-it-is-and-what-it-means(8a9b1909-1ce8-478f-b3fc-be5126911846).html |hdl-access=free}}</ref>

The [[General Data Protection Regulation]] (GDPR) is an important component of EU [[privacy law]] and of [[human rights law]], in particular Article 8(1) of the [[Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union]].

Under GDPR, data about citizens may only be gathered or processed under specific cases, and with certain conditions. Requirements of data controller parties under the GDPR include keeping records of their processing activities, adopting data protection policies, transparency with data subjects, appointing a Data Protection Officer, and implementing technical safeguards to mitigate security risks.[1]

=== Council of Europe ===

The [[Council of Europe]] gathered to discuss the protection of individuals, during the Convention Treaty No.108 was created and opened for signature by members States and for accession by non-member States.<ref name="Full list">{{Cite web|title=Full list|url=https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list|access-date=12 June 2021|website=Treaty Office|language=en-GB}}</ref>

The Convention closed and the was renamed Convention 108: Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data.

Convention 108 has undergone 5 ratifications with the last ratification 10 January 1985 officially changing the name to Convention 108+ and providing the summary stating the intent of the treaty as:

<blockquote>''The first binding international instrument which protects the individual against abuses which may accompany the collection and processing of personal data, and which seeks to regulate at the same time the transfrontier flow of personal data.<ref name="Full list"/>''</blockquote>

Increase use of the Internet and technological advancement in products lead to the Council of Europe to look at Convention 108+ and the relevance of the Treaty in the wake of the changes.

In 2011 the modernization of Convention 108+ started and completed in 2012 amending the treaty with Protocol CETS No223.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Communication|first=C 2017, ABC Design &|title=Тhe Protocol amending the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal has been adopted – КЗЛД|url=https://cpdp.bg/en/index.php?p=news_view&aid=1235|access-date=12 June 2021|website=cpdp.bg|language=en-US}}</ref>

This modernization of Convention 108+ was in progress while the EU data protection rules were developed, the EU data protection rules would be adapted to become the GDPR.

=== India ===
{{main|Right to Privacy verdict}}
The new [[data sharing]] policy of WhatsApp with Facebook after Facebook acquired WhatsApp in 2014 has been challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court must decide if the right to privacy can be enforced against private entities.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://scobserver.clpr.org.in/cases/whatsapp-facebook-privacy-case/|title=Whatsapp-Facebook Privacy Case – Supreme Court Observer|work=Supreme Court Observer|access-date=5 January 2018|language=en-US}}</ref>

The [[Supreme Court of India|Indian Supreme Court]] with nine-judge bench under [[Jagdish Singh Khehar|JS Khehar]], [[Right to Privacy verdict|ruled on 24 August 2017]], that the right to privacy is a fundamental right for Indian citizens per Article 21 of the Constitution and additionally under Part III rights. Specifically, the court adopted the three-pronged test required for the encroachment of any Article 21 right – legality{{snd}}i.e. through an existing law; necessity, in terms of a legitimate state objective and proportionality, that ensures a rational nexus between the object of the invasion and the means adopted to achieve that object.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Rajagopal |first=Krishnadas |date=2017-08-24 |title=Right to privacy inherently protected under fundamental freedoms in Constitution: Supreme Court |language=en-IN |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/privacy-is-a-fundamental-right-under-article-21-rules-supreme-court/article62042245.ece |access-date=2022-09-24 |issn=0971-751X}}</ref>

This clarification was crucial to prevent the dilution of the right in the future on the whims and fancies of the government in power.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://thewire.in/170988/right-to-privacy-supreme-court-2/|title=For the Many and the Few: What a Fundamental Right to Privacy Means for India |website=The Wire|access-date=31 March 2018}}</ref> The Court adopted a liberal interpretation of the fundamental rights to meet the challenges posed an increasing digital age. It held that individual liberty must extend to digital spaces and individual autonomy and privacy must be protected.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Supreme Court Observer |url=https://www.scobserver.in/court-case/fundamental-right-to-privacy/judgement-of-the-supreme-court-in-plain-english-i|access-date=8 July 2020|website=scobserver.in}}</ref>

This ruling by the Supreme Court paved the way for decriminalization of homosexuality in India on 6 September 2018, thus legalizing same-sex sexual intercourse between two consenting adults in private.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.thequint.com/india/2017/08/24/supreme-court-verdict-right-to-privacy|title=Too Lazy to Read Right to Privacy Ruling? Here's the TL;DR Version|work=The Quint|access-date=25 August 2017|language=en}}</ref> India is the world's biggest democracy and with this ruling, it has joined United States, Canada, South Africa, the European Union, and the UK in recognizing this fundamental right.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://andhrastar.com/india-privacy-fundamental-right/|title=Andhrastar – Breaking News, Andhra News, Telangana News, India News, Bollywood, Tollywood News, World News|website=andhrastar.com|language=en-us|access-date=25 August 2017}}</ref>

=== Israel ===
In Israel privacy protection is a constitutional basic right and is therefore protected by the Basic Law. Basic Law: the Knesset passed on 12 February 1958, but the Third Knesset.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Basic Laws |url=https://m.knesset.gov.il/en/activity/pages/basiclaws.aspx|access-date=24 July 2021|website=The Knesset}}</ref> The Twelfth Knesset update to the Basic Law occurred on 17 March 1992. This update added to the law Human Dignity and Liberty by defining: Human freedom in Israel as being the right to leave the country and enter it, as well as the right to privacy and intimacy, refrainment from searches relating to one's private property, body and possessions, and avoidance of violations of the privacy of one's speech, writings and notes.

October 2006 Israel established a regulatory authority, the PPA, part of the Ministry of Justice. PPA defined the Privacy Law and associated regulates based on two principles: general right to online privacy and the protection of personal data stored in databases.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.gov.il/en/departments/the_privacy_protection_authority/govil-landing-page |access-date=2022-09-24 |website=www.gov.il}}</ref>

=== Russia ===
The Constitution of the Russian Federation: Article 45 states:<ref>{{Cite web|title=Official Website of the Government of the Russian Federation / The Russian Government|url=http://archive.government.ru/eng/gov/base/54.html#:~:text=Article%2045-,1.,means%20not%20prohibited%20by%20law.|access-date=24 July 2021|website=archive.government.ru}}</ref>

# State protection of human and civil rights and freedoms in the Russian Federation shall be guaranteed.
# Everyone shall the right to protect his (her) rights and freedoms by all means not prohibited by law.

{{Main article|Data protection (privacy) laws in Russia}}

The Russian Constitution specifically articles 23 and 24, institutes individual citizen the right to privacy.  Russia, a member of the [[Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data|Strasbourg Convention]], ratified processing of personal data against automatic processing and afterwards adopted a new convention. The new Russian Federal Law No.152-FZ R implemented on 27 July 2006, was updated to cover Personal Data and this law extends privacy to include personal and family secrets. Its main target is to protect individuals' personal data.

Privacy entered the forefront of Russian legislature in 2014 when the approach to privacy turned to the goal of protecting privacy of government operations and the people of Russia. The amendments originally modified the Personal Data Law which has since been renamed The Data Localisation Law. The new law requires business operators who collect any information on Russian citizens' must maintain the collected data locally. This means that data transmission, processing, and storage must be in a database in Russia. 1 March 2021, the new amendment came into effect. Consent from the data subject is required if the data operator wants to use the data publicly.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Russia: Amendments to the Federal Law On Personal Data Takes Effect|url=https://www.natlawreview.com/article/russia-amendments-to-federal-law-personal-data-takes-effect|access-date=9 April 2021|website=The National Law Review|language=en}}</ref>

=== United States ===
{{main|Privacy laws of the United States}}
The [[Constitution of the United States]] and [[United States Bill of Rights]] do not explicitly include a right to privacy.<ref name="UMKC">{{Cite web|title=The Right of Privacy The Issue: Does the Constitution protect the right of privacy? If so, what aspects of privacy receive protection?|url=http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html|access-date=29 September 2020|publisher=University of Missouri – Kansas City School of Law}}</ref> Currently no federal law takes a holistic approach to privacy regulation.

In the US, privacy and associated rights have been determined via court cases and the protections have been established through laws.

The [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] in ''[[Griswold v. Connecticut]], 381 U.S. 479'' (1965) found that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion via ''[[Penumbra (law)|penumbras]]'' located in the founding text.<ref name="Vil">{{Cite web|author=R.H. Clark|year=1974|title=Constitutional Sources of the Penumbral Right to Privacy|url=https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2046&context=vlr|access-date=29 September 2020|publisher=Villanova Law Review|volume=19}}</ref>

In 1890, Warren and Brandeis drafted an article published in the ''[[Harvard Law Review]]'' titled "The Right To Privacy" that is often cited as the first implicit finding of a U.S. stance on the right to privacy.<ref name="Brandeis"/>

Right to privacy has been the justification for decisions involving a wide range of [[civil liberties]] cases, including ''[[Pierce v. Society of Sisters]]'', which invalidated a successful 1922 [[Oregon]] [[initiative]] requiring compulsory [[State school|public education]]; ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'', which struck down an abortion law from [[Texas]], and thus restricted state powers to enforce laws against abortion; and ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'', which struck down a Texas [[sodomy law]], and thus eliminated state powers to enforce laws against [[sodomy]]. ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]]'' later overruled ''Roe v. Wade'', in part due to the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] finding that the right to privacy was not mentioned in the constitution,<ref>{{Cite news |title=Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending right to abortion upheld for decades |language=en |work=NPR.org |url=https://www.npr.org/2022/06/24/1102305878/supreme-court-abortion-roe-v-wade-decision-overturn |access-date=2022-06-25}}</ref> leaving the future validity of these decisions uncertain.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Frias |first=Lauren |title=What is Griswold v. Connecticut? How access to contraception and other privacy rights could be at risk after SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/contraception-access-privacy-rights-at-risk-overturned-roe-v-wade-2022-6 |access-date=2022-06-25 |website=Business Insider |language=en-US}}</ref>

Legally, the right of privacy is a basic law<ref>{{Cite web|title=The Legal Right to Privacy {{!}} Stimmel Law|url=https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/legal-right-privacy|access-date=25 June 2021|website=www.stimmel-law.com}}</ref> which includes:

# The right of persons to be free from unwarranted publicity
# Unwarranted appropriation of one's personality
# Publicizing one's private affairs without a legitimate public concern
# Wrongful intrusion into one's private activities

In 2018, California set out to create a policy promoting data protection, the first state in the United States to pursue such protection. The resulting effort is the [[California Consumer Privacy Act]] (CCPA), reviewed as a critical juncture where the legal definition of what privacy entails from California lawmakers' perspective. The California Consumer Protection Act is a privacy law protecting the residents of California and their [[Personal identifying information]]. The law enacts regulation over all companies regardless of operational geography protecting the six Intentional Acts included in the law.

For the health care sector where medical records are part of an individual's privacy, The Privacy Rule of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act was passed in 1996. This act safeguards medical data of the patient which also includes giving individuals rights over their health information, like getting a copy of their records and seeking correction.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 {{!}} CMS |url=https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Computer-Data-and-Systems/Privacy/Health%20_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Act_of_1996 |access-date=2022-09-21 |website=www.cms.gov}}</ref> Medical anthropologist [[Khiara Bridges]] has argued that the [[Medicare (United States)|US Medicare]] system requires so much personal disclosure from pregnant women that they effectively do not have privacy rights.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Bridges |first1=Khiara M. |title=The poverty of privacy rights |date=2017 |location=Stanford, California |isbn=978-0-8047-9545-6}}</ref>

==== Intentions of the CCPA Act <ref>{{Cite web |date=2018-10-15 |title=California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) |url=https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa |access-date=2022-09-24 |website=State of California - Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General |language=en}}</ref> ====
The intentions included in the Act provide California residents with the right to:

# Know what personal data is being collected about them.
# Know whether their personal data is sold or disclosed and to whom.
# Say no to the sale of personal data.
# Access their personal data.
# Request a business to delete any personal information about a consumer collected from that consumer.
# Not be discriminated against for exercising their privacy rights.

== Mass surveillance ==
{{Further|Global surveillance|Edward Snowden|Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present)}}

=== United States ===
Governmental organizations such as the [[National Security Agency]] (NSA), CIA, and GCHQ amongst others are authorized to conduct [[mass surveillance]] throughout [[Global surveillance|other nations in the world]]. Programs such as [[PRISM (surveillance program)|PRISM]], [[MYSTIC (surveillance program)|MYSTIC]], and other operations conducted by [[NATO]]-member states are capable of collecting a vast quantity of metadata, internet history, and even actual recordings of phone calls from various countries.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The CIA has been conducting mass surveillance in the U.S. with minimal oversight—and the program's uncovering is bad news for Big Tech |url=https://fortune.com/2022/02/11/cia-mass-surveillance-wyden-privacy-shield-meta/ |access-date=2022-09-28 |website=Fortune |language=en}}</ref> Domestic law enforcement at the federal level is conducted by the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]], so these agencies have never been authorized to collect US data.<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.wired.com/2015/05/breaking-news-federal-court-rules-nsa-bulk-data-collection-illegal/|author=Andy Greenberg|date=7 May 2015|title=Court Rules NSA Bulk Data Collection Was Never Authorized By Congress|magazine=Wired |access-date=29 September 2020}}
</ref>

After the [[September 11 attacks]], the NSA turned its surveillance apparatus on the US and its citizens.<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.wired.com/2012/03/ff-nsadatacenter/|author=James Bamford|date=15 March 2012|title=The NSA Is Building the Country's Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You Say)|magazine=Wired |access-date=29 September 2020}}
</ref>

In March 2013, [[James Clapper]], the [[Director of National Intelligence]] at the time, testified under oath that the NSA does not "wittingly" collect data on Americans. Clapper later retracted this statement.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://apnews.com/article/33a88feb083ea35515de3c73e3d854ad|author=Andrew Blake|date=6 March 2019|title=James Clapper denies lying to Congress about NSA surveillance program|work=Associated Press|access-date=29 September 2020}}</ref>

The US Government's own [[Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board]] (PCLOB) reviewed the confidential security documents, and found in 2014 that the program did have ''"a single instance involving a threat to the United States in which the program made a concrete difference"'' in counterterrorism or the disruption of a terrorist attack.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/01/privacy-oversight-board-agrees-eff-mass-surveillance-illegal-and-must-end|title=Privacy Oversight Board Agrees with EFF: Mass Surveillance Is Illegal and Must End|author=Mark Rumold|date=23 January 2014|publisher=Electronic Frontier Foundation|access-date=29 September 2020}}</ref>

=== China ===
The Chinese government is conducting mass surveillance in [[Xinjiang]] province for detention of Muslims. As part of its "Strike Hard Campaign against Violent Terrorism" policy the authorities in China have subjugated 13 million Turkish Muslims to the highest order of restrictions.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2019-05-01 |title=China: How Mass Surveillance Works in Xinjiang |url=https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/05/01/china-how-mass-surveillance-works-xinjiang |access-date=2022-09-28 |website=Human Rights Watch |language=en}}</ref>

During the [[COVID-19 pandemic]] the Chinese authorities documented the contact information and travel history of every individual and issued red, yellow and green badges/codes for transportation and entering stores. These badges/codes were also sometimes misused to freeze bank accounts and pressurize the protestors who were angry about the severe restrictions. The privacy of these health codes remain unacknowledged and unaddressed.<ref>{{Cite web |title=China's Political Surveillance System Keeps Growing |url=https://thediplomat.com/2022/06/chinas-political-surveillance-system-keeps-growing/ |access-date=2022-09-28 |website=thediplomat.com |language=en-US}}</ref>

== Journalism ==
{{unreferenced section|date=June 2013}}
It is often claimed, particularly by those in the eye of the media, that their right to privacy is violated when information about their private lives is reported in the press. The point of view of the press, however, is that the general public has a right to know personal information about those with status as a public figure. This distinction is encoded in most legal traditions as an element of [[freedom of speech]].

===Publication of private facts===
Publication of private facts speaks of the newsworthiness of private facts according to the law and the protections that private facts have.<ref name="Law Project">{{cite web |title=Publication of Private Facts |url=http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/publication-private-facts |website=Digital Media Law Project |access-date=28 November 2019}}</ref> If a fact has significant newsworthiness to the public, it is protected by law under the [[freedom of the press]]. However, even if the fact is true, if it is not newsworthy, it is not necessarily protected. [[Digital Media Law Project]] uses examples such as [[sexual orientation]], HIV status, and financial status to show that these can be publicly detrimental to the figure being posted about.<ref name=" Law Project" /> The problem arises from the definition of newsworthiness.

===Newsworthiness===
{{main|Newsworthiness}}
According to Digital Media Law Project, the courts will usually side with the [[News media|press]] in the publication of private facts.<ref name=" Law Project" /> This helps to uphold the freedom of the press in the [[US Constitution]]. "there is a legitimate public interest in nearly all recent events, as well as in the private lives of prominent figures such as movie stars, politicians, and professional athletes."<ref name="Law Project" /> Digital Media Law Project supports these statements with citations to specific cases.  While most recent events and prominent figures are considered newsworthy, it cannot go too far and too deep with a [[morbid curiosity]].<ref name=" Law Project" /> The media gain a lot of leverage once a person becomes a prominent figure and many things about their lives become newsworthy. Multiple cases such as Strutner v. Dispatch Printing Co., 442 N.E.2d 129 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982)<ref name="Strutner">{{cite web |title=Strutner v. Dispatch Printing Co., 442 N.E.2d 129 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982) |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3939673/strutner-v-dispatch-printing-co/ |website=Court Listener |access-date=27 November 2019}}</ref> show that the publication of a person's home address and full name who is being questioned by the police is valid and "a newsworthy item of legitimate public concern." The last part to consider is whether this could be considered a form of [[doxxing]]. With the court upholding the newspaper's right to publish, this is much harder to change in the future.  Newsworthiness has much around it that is held up by court rulings and [[case law]]. This is not in legislation but is created through the courts, as many other laws and practices are. These are still judged on a case-by-case basis as they are often settled through a [[lawsuit]] of some form.<ref name="Law Project" /> While there is a fair amount of case law supporting newsworthiness of subjects, it is hardly comprehensive and, news publications can publish things not covered and defend themselves in court for their right to publish these facts.

== Technology ==
{{expand section|date=September 2020}}
Private sector actors can also threaten the right to privacy{{snd}}particularly technology companies, such as [[Amazon (company)|Amazon]], [[Apple Inc.|Apple]], Facebook, Google, and [[Yahoo]] that use and collect [[personal data]].

In some American jurisdictions, the use of a person's name as a keyword under Google's [[AdWords]] for advertising or trade purposes without the person's consent<ref>{{cite news|last=Fishman|first=Ross|title=Bad Precedent: Lawyer Censured for Buying Google Keywords for Other Lawyers and Law Firms|url=http://www.natlawreview.com/article/bad-precedent-lawyer-censured-buying-google-keywords-other-lawyers-and-law-firms|access-date=5 March 2014|newspaper=The National Law Review}}</ref> has raised certain personal privacy concerns.<ref>"[https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=93174 Robert L. Habush and Daniel A. Rottier, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William M. Cannon, Patrick O. Dunphy and Cannon & Dunphy, S.C., Defendants-Respondents] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130514064258/http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=93174 |date=2013-05-14 }}" (PDF). Case No.: 2011AP1769. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin Published Opinion. Opinion filed: 21 February 2013. Retrieved 5 March 2014.</ref>

The right to privacy and social media content laws have been considered and enacted in several states, such as California's "online erasure" law protecting minors from leaving a digital trail. However, the United States is still far behind that of European Union countries in protecting privacy online. For example, the "right to be forgotten" ruling by the EU Court of Justice protects both adults and minors.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Zurbriggen|first1=Eileen L.|last2=Hagai|first2=Ella Ben|last3=Leon|first3=Gabrielle|title=Negotiating privacy and intimacy on social media: Review and recommendations.|journal=Translational Issues in Psychological Science|volume=2|issue=3|pages=248–260|doi=10.1037/tps0000078|language=en|year=2016}}</ref>

Privacy is a major issue in the health care sector with technology becoming an essential component of it. Connecting personal data of patients to internet make them vulnerable to cyber attacks. There are also concerns about how much data should be stored and who should have access to it.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Meingast |first1=Marci |last2=Roosta |first2=Tanya |last3=Sastry |first3=Shankar |date=August 2006 |title=Security and Privacy Issues with Health Care Information Technology |url=https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4463039 |journal=2006 International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society |volume=2006 |location=New York, NY |publisher=IEEE |pages=5453–5458 |doi=10.1109/IEMBS.2006.260060 |pmid=17946702 |isbn=978-1-4244-0032-4|s2cid=1784412 }}</ref>

== Protection of minors ==
=== United Kingdom ===
Laws and courts in the UK uphold the protection of minors in the journalistic space. The [[Independent Press Standards Organisation]] (IPSO) in the UK have shown that the usage of footage of a 12-year-old girl being bullied in 2017 can be retroactively taken down due to fears of [[cyber-bullying]] and potential harm done to the child in the future.<ref name="Davies">{{cite journal |last1=Morris |last2=Brigit |last3=Davies |first3=Maire |title=Can Children's Privacy Rights Be Adequately Protected through Press Regulation? What Press Regulation Can Learn from the Courts. |journal=Journal of Media Law |date=1 February 2018 |volume=10 |issue=1 |pages=92–113 |doi=10.1080/17577632.2018.1467597 |s2cid=150018753 }}</ref> This was after the Mail Online published the video without any attempt to hide the identity of the child. Following the newsworthiness point, it is possible that content like this would be allowed in the United States due to the recentness of the event.<ref name=" Law Project" /> Protection of minors is a different matter in the United States with new stories about minors doing certain things and their faces are shown in a news publication. The [[Detroit Free Press]], as an example, chose to do a hard-hitting story about prostitution and drugs from a teenager but never named her or showed her face, only referring to her and the "16-year-old from Taylor".<ref name="Detroit">{{cite web |last1=Kovanis |first1=Georgea |title=She Was Prostituting, Pregnant, Doing Drugs by 14. Now, Taylor Girl Fights to Save Her Own Life |url=https://www.freep.com/in-depth/news/health/2019/11/01/addicted-teens-opioids-drugs-wolverine-treatment/2097390001/ |work=Detroit Free Press |access-date=27 November 2019}}</ref> In the UK, During the case of Campbell v MGN, Lord Hope stated that the protection of minors will be handled on a case-by-case basis and affected by the child's awareness of the photo and their expectation of privacy.<ref name=" Davies" /> Many factors will be considered such as the age of the children, activity, usage of real names, etc.<ref name="Davies" />

=== United States ===
The protection of minors in the United States often falls on the shoulders of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act ([[COPPA]]).<ref name=" FTC new">{{cite web |title=Children's Protection |url=https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/privacy-and-security/children's-privacy |website=Federal Trade Commission |publisher=Federal Trade Commission |access-date=9 December 2019}}</ref> This protects any children under the age of 13 from the collection of their data without their parent's or guardian's permission. This law is the reason why many sites will ask if you are under 13 or require you to be 13 to sign up. While this law is intended to protect preteen children, it fails to protect the information of anyone older than 13, including teenage minors. It also begins to overlap with other privacy protection laws such as the [[Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act]] (HIPAA).

== See also ==
{{Portal|Law}}
* [[Bank Secrecy Act]], a US law requiring banks to disclose details of financial transactions
* [[Information privacy]]
* [[Internet privacy]]
* [[MAINWAY]]
* [[Nothing to hide argument]]
* [[Right to be forgotten]]
* [[Stakeholder theory]]

==References==
{{Reflist|33em}}

==Sources==
* Mordini, Emilio. "Nothing to Hide: Biometrics, Privacy and Private Sphere". In: Schouten, Ben, Niels Christian Juul, Andrzej Drygajlo, and Massimo Tistarelli (editors). ''Biometrics and Identity Management: First European Workshop, BIOID 2008, Roskilde, Denmark, 7–9 May 2008, Revised Selected Papers''. [[Springer Science+Business Media]], 2008. pp.&nbsp;245–258. {{ISBN|978-3540899907}}. {{doi|10.1007/978-3-540-89991-4_27}}.
* {{cite encyclopedia |last= Singleton|first= Solveig |editor-first=Ronald |editor-last=Hamowy |editor-link=Ronald Hamowy |encyclopedia=The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism |chapter= Privacy |chapter-url=https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/libertarianism/n242.xml|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=yxNgXs3TkJYC |year=2008 |publisher= [[SAGE Publishing|Sage]]; [[Cato Institute]] |location= Thousand Oaks, CA |doi= 10.4135/9781412965811.n242|isbn= 978-1412965804 |oclc=750831024| lccn = 2008009151 |pages=390–392 }}

==External links==
* Lever, Annabelle. "[https://web.archive.org/web/20120925124156/http://www.minerva.mic.ul.ie/vol9/Feminism.html Feminism, Democracy and the Right to Privacy]" ([https://web.archive.org/web/20120925124156/http://www.minerva.mic.ul.ie/vol9/Feminism.html Archive]; [https://web.archive.org/web/20120925124156/http://www.minerva.mic.ul.ie/vol9/Feminism.html archive]). ''Minerva – An Internet Journal of Philosophy''. {{ISSN|1393-614X}}. 2005. Volume 9.
* Moore, Adam D. [http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/978-0-271-03685-4.html ''Privacy Rights: Moral and Legal Foundations''] (Pennsylvania State University Press, 2010). {{ISBN|978-0271036861}}.
* "[http://www.privacilla.org/business/privacytorts.html The Privacy Torts] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170908230758/http://www.privacilla.org/business/privacytorts.html |date=2017-09-08 }}" (19 December 2000). Privacilla.org, a "web-based think tank", devoted to privacy issues, edited by Jim Harper ("[http://www.privacilla.org/about/whatis.html About Privacilla] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304074050/http://www.privacilla.org/about/whatis.html |date=2016-03-04 }}")

{{Privacy}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Privacy law| ]]
[[Category:Digital rights]]
[[Category:Human rights]]