Privacy: A Review and Critique of the Literature
It seems trite to say privacy is valuable. The Supreme Court of Canada has emphasized that privacy is worthy of constitutional protection. Scholars tend to agree that privacy is a fundamental moral and political concept. The consensus appears to end, however, when privacy in theory approaches privacy in practice. As a broad and evanescent concept, opinions differ as to what interests or values the protection of privacy is designed to achieve. The prevailing conceptions of privacy — six of which have been identified — fall prey to substantive criticisms from which, the author contends, they cannot recover. First, they suffer from intuitionism. That is, they offer an intuitive approach of what makes things "private" and incorrectly assume that we all approach privacy with a common understanding of the concept, or concepts, that the term "privacy" expresses. Further, the standing conceptions of privacy depend upon and serve the concept of privacy as liberty which itself is flawed. "Liberty" is seen as a form of licence, protecting — in its most crude form—an individual's right to do as he or she pleases. So viewed, it is not particularly surprising to see privacy attacked when competing "liberty" issues are at stake. Given the substantial criticisms with the prevailing conceptions of privacy, it may be worthwhile to reconsider the present paradigm against which privacy is conceived. It may be that privacy is better conceived of as an equality issue, not a liberty issue. The focus should shift away from conceptualizing privacy as a prerequisite for preventing invasions of various liberty interests to one of "maintaining conditions " that will make the exercise of those liberty interests possible. By limiting the ambit of privacy, we may indeed strengthen it.
Author(s) retain original copyright in the substantive content of the titled work, subject to the following rights that are granted indefinitely:
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to produce, publish, disseminate, and distribute the titled work in electronic format to online database services, including, but not limited to: LexisNexis, QuickLaw, HeinOnline, and EBSCO;
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to post the titled work on the Alberta Law Review website and/or related websites.
- Author(s) agree that the titled work may be used for educational or instructional purposes and/or in educational or instructional materials. The author(s) acknowledge that the titled work is subject to other such "fair dealing" provisions and applicable legislation.
- Author(s) grant a limited license to those accessing the titled work from an electronic database or an Alberta Law Review website to download the titled work onto their computer and to print a copy for their own personal, non-commercial use, subject to proper attribution.
To use the journal's content elsewhere, permission must be obtained from the author(s) and the Alberta Law Review.