Urbanization and the introduction of advanced technology have altered the meaning of and value of privacy; instead of seclusion and publicity being two separate, binary entitles, staying in control of personal information has become a negotiation. Charles Fried, a Beneficial Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, argues that privacy is a “basic right” that allows individuals to define their relationships with others (478-479). In their article about the experiences of young people online, Valerie Steeves, Associate Professor at the University of Ottawa, and Priscilla Regan, Professor at George Mason University, agree that privacy is essential — it is “among the rights, duties, or values of any morally legitimate social and political system”
…show more content…
Fried argues that privacy and respect are prerequisites for relationships of love, friendship, and trust (480). According to Steeves and Regan, this social negotiation of privacy is vital in order to “navigate the boundary between self/other and between being closed/open to social interaction” (300). Privacy is dialectical: it is a spectrum that is always being negotiated (Steeves & Regan 309-310). It is not a question of whether individuals require privacy, but how much is beneficial, and why. Privacy is reliant on the social context; Steeves and Regan reported adolescents being comfortable posting personal information online, but discontent with their parents or “older male strangers” viewing it (302). Thus, the need for privacy is contingent on context and the nature of the personal information being revealed. In relationships, the amount of information shared creates differing degrees of intimacy which enables the individual to define his or her relationships with others. Both Posner and Fried referring to personal information as a form of social currency, something that can be “spent” on a friend or a partner (Fried 485; Posner 14). Since love and friendship are built on trust, and trust is a manifestation of privacy, “they require a context of privacy or the possibility of privacy for their existence” (Fried 477). While Steeves and Regan agree with this sentiment — privacy is “deeply linked to identity and relationship” — Posner denies this concept (300). He claims that only in the case of business and formal, signed agreements is privacy legally guaranteed. Since there is no formal promise of privacy in a relationship, it must not be a precondition (Posner 20). Evidently, relationships do not require privacy to exist; instead, privacy enables individuals to define said relationships via intimacy, the sharing of information without
Fried argues that privacy and respect are prerequisites for relationships of love, friendship, and trust (480). According to Steeves and Regan, this social negotiation of privacy is vital in order to “navigate the boundary between self/other and between being closed/open to social interaction” (300). Privacy is dialectical: it is a spectrum that is always being negotiated (Steeves & Regan 309-310). It is not a question of whether individuals require privacy, but how much is beneficial, and why. Privacy is reliant on the social context; Steeves and Regan reported adolescents being comfortable posting personal information online, but discontent with their parents or “older male strangers” viewing it (302). Thus, the need for privacy is contingent on context and the nature of the personal information being revealed. In relationships, the amount of information shared creates differing degrees of intimacy which enables the individual to define his or her relationships with others. Both Posner and Fried referring to personal information as a form of social currency, something that can be “spent” on a friend or a partner (Fried 485; Posner 14). Since love and friendship are built on trust, and trust is a manifestation of privacy, “they require a context of privacy or the possibility of privacy for their existence” (Fried 477). While Steeves and Regan agree with this sentiment — privacy is “deeply linked to identity and relationship” — Posner denies this concept (300). He claims that only in the case of business and formal, signed agreements is privacy legally guaranteed. Since there is no formal promise of privacy in a relationship, it must not be a precondition (Posner 20). Evidently, relationships do not require privacy to exist; instead, privacy enables individuals to define said relationships via intimacy, the sharing of information without