Graduate studies at Western
The Monist 91 (1):130-150 (2008)
|Abstract||Defining privacy is problematic because the condition of privacy appears simultaneously to require separation from others, and the possibility of choosing not to be separate. This latter feature expresses the inherent normative dimension of privacy: the capacity to control the perceptual and informational spaces surrounding one’s person. Clearly the features of separation and control as just described are in tension because one may easily enough choose to give up all barriers between oneself and the public space. How could the capacity for privacy give rise to its absence? Yet both the separation and control features of privacy do seem indispensable to any sensible understanding of it. In this paper I set out an approach to defining privacy that keeps these features and avoids the tension between them|
|Keywords||Privacy normative autonomy|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Alan Rubel (2011). The Particularized Judgment Account of Privacy. Res Publica 17 (3):275-290.
Alexandra Couto (2006). Privacy and Justification. Res Publica 12 (3):223-248.
Luciano Floridi (2006). Four Challenges for a Theory of Informational Privacy. Ethics and Information Technology 8 (3):109-119.
David Matheson (2007). Unknowableness and Informational Privacy. Journal of Philosophical Research 32:251-267.
Scott A. Davison (1997). Privacy and Control. Faith and Philosophy 14 (2):137-151.
Elin Palm (2009). Privacy Expectations at Work—What is Reasonable and Why? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 12 (2):201 - 215.
Kenneth Einar Himma, Separation, Risk, and the Necessity of Privacy to Well-Being: A Comment on Adam Moore's Toward Informational Privacy Rights.
Samuel C. Rickless (2007). The Right to Privacy Unveiled. San Diego Law Review 44 (1):773-799.
Added to index2010-03-21
Total downloads13 ( #95,713 of 740,456 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,960 of 740,456 )
How can I increase my downloads?