Accessible Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter November 8, 2018

Privacy, Interests, and Inalienable Rights

Adam D. Moore

Abstract

Some rights are so important for human autonomy and well-being that many scholars insist they should not be waived, traded, or abandoned. Privacy is a recent addition to this list. At the other end of the spectrum is the belief that privacy is a mere unimportant interest or preference. This paper defends a middle path between viewing privacy as an inalienable, non-waivable, non-transferrable right and the view of privacy as a mere subjective interest. First, an account of privacy is offered that clarifies the concept and demonstrates how privacy is directly related to human health and well-being. Second, along with considering and rejecting several accounts for why privacy might be considered an inalienable right, an argument is offered for why it is morally permissible to waive, transfer, abandon, or alienate privacy.

Acknowledgements

A version of this paper was presented at the Center for Technology, Innovation, and Competition, University of Pennsylvania conference on ‘Taking Responsibility for One’s Own Data Privacy and Security’, 24th April, 2015. The author would like to thank Anita Allen, Christopher S. Yoo, and the other conference participants for comments and suggestions. The author would also like to thank Bryce Newell, Mike Katell, Gerdo Kuiper, the anonymous referees and the editors of this journal for helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

References

Allen, A.L. (2007). ‘Unpopular Privacy: The Case for Government Mandates’, Oklahoma City University Law Review 32: 87–102.Search in Google Scholar

Allen, A.L. (2011). Unpopular Privacy: What Must We Hide? (Oxford: Oxford University Press)Search in Google Scholar

Allen, A.L. (2015). ‘The Duty to Protect Your Own Privacy’, inA.D. Moore (ed.). Privacy, Security, and Accountability (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield International), pp. 19–38Search in Google Scholar

Anderson, E.S. (1999). ‘What Is the Point of Equality?’, Ethics 109 (2): 287–337.Search in Google Scholar

Arneson, R. (1997). ‘Equality and Equality of Opportunity for Welfare’, inL.P. Pojman and R. Westmoreland (eds.). Equality: Selected Readings (New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 229–241Search in Google Scholar

Baird, D.G., Gertner, R.H., and Pickner, R.C. (1998). ‘Game Theory and the Law’, inP. Newman (ed.). The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics & the Law (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 605Search in Google Scholar

Baldwin, S. (2004). ‘Forgotten Web Celebrities: Jennicam.Org’s Jennifer Ringley’, Ghost Sites of the Web (blog), 19th May, URL= (accessed on 27 June, 2018).Search in Google Scholar

Benndorf, V., Kübler, D., and Normann, H. (2015). ‘Privacy Concerns, Voluntary Disclosure of Information, and Unraveling: An Experiment’, European Economic Review 75: 43–59.Search in Google Scholar

Benndorf, V. and Normann, H. (2017). ‘The Willingness to Sell Personal Data’, Scandinavian Journal of Economics April. 120: 1–21.Search in Google Scholar

Bennett, C.J. and Raab, C.D. (2006). The Governance of Privacy (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press)Search in Google Scholar

Biasetti, P. (2015). ‘Infinite Regress and Hohfeld: A Comment on Hillel Steiner’s “Directed Duties and Inalienable Rights”’, Ethics 126 (1): 139–152.Search in Google Scholar

Brandimarte, L., Acquisti, A., and Gino, F. (2018). ‘A Disclosure Paradox: Can Revealing Sensitive Information Make Us Harsher Judges of Others’ Sensitive Disclosures?’ Working Paper, 17th January, (accessed on 27 June, 2018).Search in Google Scholar

Brown, S.M. (1955). ‘Inalienable Rights’, The Philosophical Review 64 (2): 192–211.Search in Google Scholar

Buckland, M.K. (1991). ‘Information as Thing’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science 42 (5): 351–360.Search in Google Scholar

Calo, R. (2011). ‘The Boundaries of Privacy Harm’, Indiana Law Journal 86 (3): 1131–1162.Search in Google Scholar

Cavanaugh, J.M., Giapponi, C.C., and Golden, T.D. (2016). ‘Digital Technology and Student Cognitive Development: The Neuroscience of the University Classroom’, Journal of Management Education 40 (4): 374–397.Search in Google Scholar

Chalykoff, J. and Kochan, T.A. (1989). ‘Computer-Aided Monitoring: Its Influence on Employee Job Satisfaction and Turnover’, Personnel Psychology: A Journal of Applied Research 42 (4): 807–834.Search in Google Scholar

Conley, D. (2001). ‘A Room with A View or A Room of One’s Own? Housing and Social Stratification’, Sociological Forum 16 (2): 263–280.Search in Google Scholar

Conly, S. (2013). Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)Search in Google Scholar

Cooley, T.M. (1888). A Treatise of on the Law of Torts or the Wrongs Which Arise Independent of Contract (Chicago: Callaghan)Search in Google Scholar

Cox, V.C., Paulus, P.B., and McCain, G. (1984). ‘Prison Crowding Research: The Relevance for Prison Housing Standards and a General Approach regarding Crowding Phenomena’, American Psychologist 39 (10): 1148–1160.Search in Google Scholar

Davidson, J. (2014). ‘You Say You’d Give up Online Convenience for Privacy – But You’re Lying’, Time. 25th June, URL=(accessed on 27 June, 2018).Search in Google Scholar

Drake, G. (2017). ‘Navigating the Atlantic: Understanding EU Data Privacy Compliance Amidst a Sea of Uncertainty’, Southern California Law Review 91 (1): 163–194.Search in Google Scholar

Ellerman, D. (2010). ‘Inalienable Rights: A Litmus Test for Liberal Theories of Justice’, Law and Philosophy 29 (5): 571–599.Search in Google Scholar

European Union (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). URL= (accessed on 27 June, 2018).Search in Google Scholar

Farrington, D.P. and Nuttall, C.P. (1980). ‘Prison Size, Overcrowding, Prison Violence and Recidivism’, Journal of Criminal Justice 8 (4): 221–231.Search in Google Scholar

Federal Trade Commission v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp. et al. (2015). U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Case No. 14-3514.Search in Google Scholar

Frank, R. (1988). Passions within Reason: The Strategic Role of the Emotions (New York: Norton)Search in Google Scholar

Froomkin, A.M. (2000). ‘The Death of Privacy’, Stanford Law Review 52 (5): 1461–1543.Search in Google Scholar

Fuller, T.D., Edwards, J.N., Vorakitphokatorn, S., and Sermsri, S. (1996). ‘Chronic Stress and Psychological Well-Being: Evidence from Thailand on Household Crowding’, Social Science & Medicine 42 (2): 265–280.Search in Google Scholar

Gaes, G.G. and McGuire, W.J. (1985). ‘Prison Violence: The Contribution of Crowding versus Other Determinants of Prison Assault Rates’, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 22 (1): 41–65.Search in Google Scholar

Hardin, R. (1986). ‘The Utilitarian Logic of Liberalism’, Ethics 97 (1): 47–74.Search in Google Scholar

Harer, M.D. and Steffensmeier, D.J. (1996). ‘Race and Prison Violence’, Criminology 34 (3): 323–355.Search in Google Scholar

Hart, H.L.A. (1955). ‘Are There Any Natural Rights?’, The Philosophical Review 64 (2): 175–191.Search in Google Scholar

Holt, M., Lang, L., and Sutton, S.G. (2017). ‘Potential Employees’ Ethical Perceptions of Active Monitoring: The Dark Side of Data Analytics’, Journal of Information Systems 31 (2): 107–124.Search in Google Scholar

Inness, J.C. (1992). Privacy, Intimacy, and Isolation (New York: Oxford University Press)Search in Google Scholar

Irving, R., Higgins, C., and Safayeni, F. (1986). ‘Computerized Performance Monitoring Systems: Use and Abuse’, Communications of the ACM 29 (8): 794–801.Search in Google Scholar

Jin, G., Luca, M., and Martin, D. (2018). ‘Is No News (Perceived) Bad News? an Experimental Investigation of Information Disclosure’, Harvard Business School Working Paper, 17th January, URL= (accessed on 27 June, 2018).Search in Google Scholar

Katz v. United States. (1967). 389 U.S. 347.Search in Google Scholar

Kerr, M. and Stattin, H. (2000). ‘What Parents Know, How They Know It, and Several Forms of Adolescent Adjustment: Further Support for a Reinterpretation of Monitoring’, Journal of Developmental Psychology 36 (3): 366–380.Search in Google Scholar

Kidwell, R.E. and Bennett, N. (1994). ‘Employee Reactions to Electronic Control Systems’, Group & Organization Management 19 (2): 203–218.Search in Google Scholar

Lahm, K.F. (2008). ‘Inmate-On-Inmate Assault’, Criminal Justice and Behavior 35 (1): 120–137.Search in Google Scholar

Lever, A. (2012). On Privacy (New York: Routledge)Search in Google Scholar

Locke, J. (1689). The Second Treatise of Government (London: Awnsham Churchill)Search in Google Scholar

Lund, J. (1992). ‘Electronic Performance Monitoring: A Review of Research Issues’, Applied Ergonomics 23 (1): 54–58.Search in Google Scholar

Maltby, L.L. (1999). Drug Testing: A Bad Investment’ (New York: ACLU)Search in Google Scholar

Marmor, A. (1997). ‘On the Limits of Rights’, Law and Philosophy 16 (1): 1–18.Search in Google Scholar

McCain, G., Cox, V.C., and Paulus, P.B. (1981). The Effect of Prison Crowding on Inmate Behavior (Washington DC: US Department of Justice)Search in Google Scholar

McConnell, T. (1984). ‘The Nature and Basis of Inalienable Rights’, Law and Philosophy 3 (1): 25–59.Search in Google Scholar

Megargee, E.I. (1977). ‘The Association of Population Density Reduced Space and Uncomfortable Temperatures with Misconduct in a Prison Community’, American Journal of Community Psychology 5 (3): 289–298.Search in Google Scholar

Meyers, D. (1985). Inalienable Rights: A Defense (New York: Columbia University Press)Search in Google Scholar

Mill, J.S. (1999/1859). On Liberty E. Alexander (ed.). (Ontario CA: Broadview Press).Search in Google Scholar

Milnitsky-Sapiro, C., Turiel, E., and Nucci, L. (2006). ‘Brazilian Adolescents’ Conceptions of Autonomy and Parental Authority’, Cognitive Development 21 (3): 317–331.Search in Google Scholar

Moore, A.D. (2003). ‘Privacy: Its Meaning and Value’, American Philosophical Quarterly 40 (3): 215–227.Search in Google Scholar

Moore, A.D. (2004). ‘Values, Objectivity, and Relationalism’, The Journal of Value Inquiry 38 (1): 75–90.Search in Google Scholar

Moore, A.D. (2008). ‘Defining Privacy’, Journal of Social Philosophy 39 (3): 411–428.Search in Google Scholar

Moore, A.D. (2010). Privacy Rights: Moral and Legal Foundations (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press)Search in Google Scholar

Moore, A.D. (2012). ‘A Lockean Theory of Intellectual Property Revisited’, San Diego Law Review 49 (4): 1069–1103.Search in Google Scholar

Mumford, L. (1961). The City in History (New York: Harcourt Brace)Search in Google Scholar

Nakada, M. and Tamura, T. (2005). ‘Japanese Conceptions of Privacy: An Intercultural Perspective’, Ethics and Information Technology 7 (1): 27–36.Search in Google Scholar

Newell, B., Metoyer, C.A., and Moore, A.D. (2015). ‘Privacy in the Family’, inB. Roessler and D. Mokrosinska (eds.). The Social Dimensions of Privacy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 104–121Search in Google Scholar

Nissenbaum, H. (2010). Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and Integrity of Social Life (Stanford, CA: Stanford Law Books)Search in Google Scholar

Nissenbaum, H. and Brunton, F. (2015). Obfuscation: A User’s Guide for Privacy and Protest (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press)Search in Google Scholar

Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York: Basic Books)Search in Google Scholar

Parent, W. (1980). ‘Judith Thomson and the Logic of Rights’, Philosophical Studies 37 (4): 405–418.Search in Google Scholar

Paulus, P.B., McCain, G., and Cox, V. (1978). ‘Death Rates, Psychiatric Commitments, Blood Pressure, and Perceived Crowding as a Function of Institutional Crowding’, Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior 3 (2): 107–116.Search in Google Scholar

Peppet, S.R. (2011). ‘Unraveling Privacy: The Personal Prospectus and the Threat of a Full Disclosure Future’, Northwestern University Law Review 105 (3): 1153–1204.Search in Google Scholar

Porporino, F.J. and Dudley, K. (1984). An Analysis of the Effects of Overcrowding in Canadian Penitentiaries (Ottawa, ON: Research Division, Programs Branch, Solicitor General of Canada)Search in Google Scholar

Posey, C., Bennett, R.J., Roberts, T.L., and Lowry, P.B. (2011). ‘When Computer Monitoring Backfires: Invasion of Privacy and Organizational Injustice as Precursors to Computer Abuse’, Journal of Information System Security 7 (1): 24–47.Search in Google Scholar

Posner, R.A. (1998). ‘Privacy’, inP. Newman (ed.). The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics & the Law (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 103Search in Google Scholar

Posner, R.A. (2008). ‘Privacy, Surveillance, and the Law’, University of Chicago Law Review 75 (1): 245–260.Search in Google Scholar

Prosser, W. (1960). ‘Privacy’, California Law Review 48 (3): 383–423.Search in Google Scholar

Rachels, J. (1975). ‘Why Privacy Is Important’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 4 (4): 323–333.Search in Google Scholar

Radin, M.J. (1987). ‘Market-Inalienability’, Harvard Law Review 100 (8): 1849–1937.Search in Google Scholar

Raz, J. (1984). ‘On the Nature of Rights’, Mind 93: 194–214.Search in Google Scholar

Richards, N.M. and Solove, D.J. (2007). ‘Privacy’s Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality’, Georgetown Law Journal 96 (1): 123–183.Search in Google Scholar

Roberts, J. and Gregor, T. (1971). ‘Privacy: A Cultural View’, inJ.R. Pennock and J.W. Chapman (eds.). Privacy: Nomos XIII (New York: Atherton), pp. 199–225Search in Google Scholar

Roemer, J. (1993). ‘A Pragmatic Theory of Responsibility for the Egalitarian Planner’, Philosophy & Public Affairs 22 (2): 146–166.Search in Google Scholar

Rössler, B. (2005). The Value of Privacy (Cambridge: Polity)Search in Google Scholar

Ruback, R.B. and Carr, T.S. (1984). ‘Crowding in a Woman’s Prison: Attitudinal and Behavioral Effects’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology 14 (1): 57–68.Search in Google Scholar

Sanchez Abril, P. (2007). ‘A (My)Space of One’s Own: On Privacy and Online Social Networks’, Northwestern Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property 6 (1): 73–87.Search in Google Scholar

Satz, D. (2010). Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets (Oxford: Oxford University Press)Search in Google Scholar

Schmidtz, D. (2011). ‘Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets (Book Review)’, The Journal of Philosophy 108 (4): 219–223.Search in Google Scholar

Schwartz, B. (1968). ‘The Social Psychology of Privacy’, American Journal of Sociology 73 (6): 741–752.Search in Google Scholar

Severy, L.J. (1979). ‘Individual Variation in Perception, Adaptation, and Consequent Crowding’, inM.R. GüRkaynak and W.A. LeCompte (eds.). Human Consequences of Crowding (New York: Plenum Press), pp. 57–65Search in Google Scholar

Shepard, E. and Clifton, T. (1998). ‘Drug Testing: Does It Really Improve Labor Productivity?’, Working USA 2 (4): 68–76.Search in Google Scholar

Simmons, A.J. (1983). ‘Inalienable Rights and Locke’s Treatises’, Philosophy & Public Affairs 12 (3): 175–204.Search in Google Scholar

Siry, L. (2015). ‘Forget Me, Forget Me Not: Reconciling Two Different Paradigms of the Right to Be Forgotten’, The Kentucky Law Journal 103 (3): 311–344.Search in Google Scholar

Solove, D.J. (2004). The Digital Person: Technology and Privacy in the Information Age (New York: New York University Press)Search in Google Scholar

Spencer, H. (1904). Essays: Scientific, Political, and Speculative Vol. 3 (New York: D. Appleton and Company).Search in Google Scholar

Spiro, H. (1971). ‘Privacy in Comparative Perspective’, inJ.R. Pennock and J.W. Chapman (eds.). Privacy: Nomos XIII (New York: Atherton), pp. 121–148Search in Google Scholar

Steiner, H. (2013). ‘Directed Duties and Inalienable Rights’, Ethics 123 (2): 230–244.Search in Google Scholar

Stell, L.K. (1979). ‘Dueling and the Right to Life’, Ethics 90 (1): 7–26.Search in Google Scholar

Talbott, W. (2010). Human Rights and Human Well-Being (Oxford: Oxford University Press)Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, B. (2014). ‘Privacy Is Dead’, Stratechery. 17th June, URL=(accessed on 27 June, 2018).Search in Google Scholar

Thomson, J.J. (1986). Rights, Restitution, and Risk: Essays in Moral Theory (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press)Search in Google Scholar

UN General Assembly. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights, URL=(accessed on 15th March, 2018).Search in Google Scholar

US Department of Education. (2011). The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act Guidance for Eligible Students, URL= (accessed on 27 June, 2018).Search in Google Scholar

Van DeVeer, D. (1980). ‘Are Human Rights Alienable?’, Philosophical Studies 37 (2): 165–176.Search in Google Scholar

Voss, W.G. (2016). ‘European Union Data Privacy Law Reform: General Data Protection Regulation, Privacy Shield, and the Right to Delisting’, The Business Lawyer 72 (1): 221–233.Search in Google Scholar

Wagner DeCew, J. (1997). In Pursuit of Privacy: Law, Ethics, and the Rise of Technology (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press)Search in Google Scholar

Warren, S.D. and Brandeis, L.D. (1890). ‘The Right to Privacy’, Harvard Law Review 4 (5): 193–220.Search in Google Scholar

Westin, A.F. (1968). Privacy and Freedom (New York: Atheneum)Search in Google Scholar

Wooldredge, J., Griffin, T., and Pratt, T. (2001). ‘Considering Hierarchical Models for Research on Inmate Behavior: Predicting Misconduct with Multilevel Data’, Justice Quarterly 18 (1): 203–231.Search in Google Scholar

Zwick, D. and Dholakia, N. (2001). ‘Contrasting European and American Approaches to Privacy in Electronic Markets: Property Right versus Civil Right’, Electronic Markets 11 (2): 116–120.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2018-11-08
Published in Print: 2018-11-27

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston