It is acceptable to intrude someone's privacy under two circumstances. One, there is reason to believe (with substantial evidence) that they intend to hurt themselves or others. And two, they work as a public figure and hold a public office. Privacy is a right until either of the requirements above are met. Those who threaten their own well being or those around them give up this right. Those who take public office serve the people and therefore should understand that their privacy is contingent upon the interest of the very people they serve.
Something that stuck out for me came from Warren and Brandeis where it said "the design of law must be to protect those persons with whose affairs the community has no legitimate concern." This addresses both scenarios above. The community has legitimate reason for the concern of everyone's well being. Taking public office comes with an inherent understanding that to serve the public effectively certain aspects of their lives should have privacy voided. If it is a legitimate concern of the public then there's no reason to expect privacy. Those who hold office should understand that their position is greater than themselves as individuals. To keep the integrity of the office they have to give up their right to privacy in order to be the office of the people.
If you want something to be private then keep it private. If it's not meant to be seen then hide it or don't share it. There's a duty of every individual to safeguard their privacy to the best of their ability. In regards to Google dorking whatever information is available should have been scrutinized before it is put out. If a person does something outside of their selves then it should be thought of as a broadcast to the rest of the world, whether or not it is picked up. Whatever leaves the mind to come out in which ever form it may will be their own responsibility to limit the impact it will have to their privacy.
No comments:
Post a Comment