ABSTRACT
Privacy is a fundamental human right, but it remains one of the most debated because it lacks a clear definition. As technology evolves, it reshapes our understanding of privacy, blurring the line between what is personal and what is public. This shift creates uncertainty about how much privacy should be protected and to what extent security concerns justify surveillance and control. Rather than being seen as a natural right, privacy is constantly challenged.
This paper explores how new technologies have redefined privacy, making its protection more complex. I argue that these challenges stem from the absence of a clear definition of privacy. To safeguard this essential human right—one that shields individuals from excessive control and upholds democratic values—we must rethink and redefine privacy in a way that ensures stronger, more effective protection in the modern world.
Keywords: Privacy, technology, human rights, democratic values.
INTRODUCTION
The right to privacy is recognized in major human rights documents, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[1], the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[2], and the European Convention on Human Rights. [3]However, there is ongoing debate about what privacy really means and where to draw the line between private and public life. One of the main reasons for this confusion is the rapid advancement of technology, which has significantly changed how we think about privacy. In many ways, it seems like no one truly knows what privacy means anymore, and this uncertainty has serious consequences in the legal world. The issue is not just about defining the word, but about understanding what privacy actually means to us today. How much do we really value it?
This lack of clarity often leads to disagreements, even in court, where judges struggle to make fair decisions because people have different views on privacy’s importance. Privacy frequently clashes with security concerns, forcing us to choose which one takes priority. Some believe that privacy is a core value of democracy and should be protected at all costs. Others argue that privacy is overrated, saying, “If we have nothing to hide[4], why should we worry?” This way of thinking has been used to justify increasing surveillance and control by governments, police, intelligence agencies, banks, healthcare providers, and large corporations.
Colin Bennett offers a possible way forward by suggesting that, while there may never be a universally agreed definition of privacy, we all need it to some extent. This means that instead of trying to find a perfect definition, we should recognize privacy as a flexible social concept—one that is both necessary and worth protecting.
One of the biggest privacy challenges today comes from digital surveillance tools, which have made it harder than ever to maintain personal privacy. Laws struggle to keep up with technology, which constantly evolves and changes the way we communicate. For example, before the telephone, private correspondence meant letters. Today, it includes emails, text messages, and online chats. The rapid growth of digital communication makes privacy increasingly difficult to safeguard. The conflict between privacy laws and technology is like a race between the tortoise and the hare—no matter how many laws are created, they can never fully keep up with new surveillance methods.
To tackle this issue, we need to shift our perspective. The problem is not technology itself, but how we use it. James Rule warns against blaming technology, saying the real issue is that we must make tough choices between security, privacy, and social values. Protecting privacy today means ensuring that surveillance is transparent and fair. People should have the right to know when and how they are being monitored and should be able to control who has access to their personal data. Surveillance must be regulated by law with human rights as the top priority.
Security and privacy are both important, and we should not have to sacrifice one for the other. Instead, we must find a balance that works in each situation. Technology can be used for security purposes, but it must be done in a way that respects human dignity and individual freedom. The real concern is that surveillance often operates in secret, leaving people unaware of how they are being watched. This lack of awareness fuels fear and uncertainty. If technology is used for control, it should empower individuals rather than limit their freedoms. By ensuring transparency and accountability, we can create a system where security and privacy coexist without compromising democracy.
[1] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, http://www.un.org/en/documents/
udhr/, last visited 01 December 2014.
[2] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, http://www.ohchr.org/en/
professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx, last visited 01 December 2014.
[3] European Convention on Human Rights, http://www.echr.coe.int/documents/
convention_eng.pdf, last visited 01 December 2014
[4] D. Solove, Nothing to Hide, The False Tradeoff Between Privacy and Security,
Yale University Press, New Haven and London 2011, 47–210.