Privacy and the Right to Freedom of Information - Research Paper Example

? Privacy and the Right to Freedom of Information of the of the Concerned 10 June Introduction To a great extent, the concept of privacy and freedom of information sound to be mutually contradictory and conflicting. Many a time one comes across instances when the constraints of privacy are breached by requirements of free expression. For instance, sometimes journalists do investigate into and publish reports regarding the personal lives of public figures and personalities without even bothering to solicit a valid consent or permission from their subjects. Also, financial institutions like banks and credit card companies on a regular basis pass on the credit records and details of their clients to the credit rating agencies and organizations to protect the interests and essentials of free commerce. It goes without saying that the idea of a free and hassle free exchange of information does have its benefits and advantages. Yet, again, the notion of regarding the privacy of the individuals, groups and organizations to be protected and sanctimonious also sounds to be a valid and just proposal. Isn’t it considered to be a common ethical behavior on the part of doctors to maintain the confidentiality of the health records of their patients at all costs? A commonsensical approach towards life amply corroborates the fact that nobody in the right mind would ever like to put up with a society, where the details pertaining to one’s personal, professional and social life are unscrupulously open to public scrutiny and access. As is often said, the extreme of anything is bad. So it is human to expect the state and fellow citizens and the organizations managed by them to respect one’s personal life and privacy. However, an optimal level of efficiency and transparency in the society necessitates a level of free exchange of information and facts. The biggest challenge before the individual and the state is to methodically and systematically maintain the right balance between the need for privacy and the right to freedom of information. May sound simple, but in a real life scenario, it is easier said than done. Understanding the Concept of Privacy and Freedom Realistically speaking, privacy does qualify to be considered to be a fundamental and innate need of humanity that is to a great extent is essential and a must for individual and social growth in an environment governed by a measure of dignity (Inness 3). However, this very concept of privacy could also be interpreted in a relativistic context, subject to individual preferences and views and the nature of the situations that breach privacy (Francis 91). In a psychological context, a sense of privacy is a necessary safety valve against any fear of losing control or context (Etzioni 187). Thus, it goes without saying that grappling with, limiting and defining the concept of privacy is utterly unwieldy and difficult, as the idea of privacy is subject to multiple dimensions and facets. In a simplistic attempt, privacy may be considered to be the right of the individuals, groups and institutions to control and determine as to what information about them is communicated to others, how and in what manner it is communicated and when and at what time it is communicated (Scoglio 24). In an individualistic context, privacy may be taken as the prerogative of an individual to determine as to what happens to the personal information associated with one (Scoglio 24). May sound surprising, but the concept of privacy could also be interpreted in the context of individual and collective freedom. In that context privacy could be taken to be a control over one’s interactions with the society that maximizes freedom and autonomy and minimizes vulnerability and possible threats to individual or group integrity. In other words (Boling 85). Privacy is an attempt on the part of individuals, groups and organizations to mark their respective boundaries (Boling 85). It goes without saying that the contemporary age of information has added many new dimensions to the concepts of privacy and freedom. In that context, privacy may be interpreted to be a desire or say intention to have control over personal data or information (Neeley 47). It could also mean a hold over the choice to initiate or debar interactions with others (Neeley 47). It could also be taken to be a control over the individuals and institutions with which one shares information (Neeley 48). Considering the recent advent of things like spyware, spy cams and varied other technologies and gadgets related to monitoring and tracking, privacy here could also be taken to mean physical privacy, aimed at controlling and managing wanted or unwanted surveillance and tracking (Neeley 48). However, the very same notion of privacy could be exploited by the repressive states and regimes to withhold the necessary information and data needed by people to exercise varied freedoms and rights (Foerstel 3). Hence the constraints of privacy need to be diluted to some extent to give way to a better social and civic life. Right to freedom of information is central to a transparent and accountable social and civic life (Foerstel 2). If privacy is an essential human need, seeking information about one’s fellow humans is a natural human behavior. In the social sphere, effective relationships amongst neighbors, colleagues and coworkers make it a must that people access and share information about eachother. The same stands to be true in the world of business. Unless the information about varied stakeholders in a business operation is not accessible and available, it gets difficult to take effective and profitable business decisions. This stands to be more then true in the ongoing information revolution. Websites need to know about the people visiting them and people also need to have information to establish the credentials of the websites being visited by them (Neeley 48). Without access to the right information e-commerce will simply reduce to interactions between strangers, with doubtful and inapt identities. In fact the very idea of bringing internet within regulatory and legal norms rests on the concept of right to information (Neeley 48). It is natural to expect that the individuals residing in a free society must be allowed to learn about eachother and to gather information about eachother so long as that information does not violate somebody’s personal integrity, property and patent rights. The same stands to be true for the print and digital media. In a pragmatic context, freedom of information sounds to be a general rule with legal constraints safeguarding privacy amounting to special exceptions. In the sphere of governance, the right to freedom of information has multifarious relevance and possibilities that simply cannot be ignored or set aside. The right to freedom of information is central to a transparent and accountability driven social and civic life (Foerstel 4). People need to have a ready access to information related to government and government departments to fix accountability on the part of the public figures and institutions and organizations vested with public power and resources and that are expected to meet an equitable and just treatment to all people as per the established rule of law (Foerstel 7). Besides, access to information is an important weapon and safeguard against misrule and corruption. Democracy is about the rule of the people and sans access to the state records and data, people simply cannot decide as to whether a particular government need to be retained or should be thrown out of the office for discrepancies and mismanagement. It is not a surprise that the crux of most of the freedom of information laws hovers around government and state records and data. Eventually it is the people who are directly impacted by the activities of the provincial, state and federal governments, so it is but natural to expect people to vest an interest in the information pertaining to the activities of the public personalities and institutions (Foerstel 7). In an American context, the right to freedom of information is of even greater relevance and import because the US is mostly considered to be a leader in the area of democratic rights and powers. The Right to Privacy and US It sounds pragmatic to analyze the scope of the right to privacy in the US in the light of the augmenting law and order challenges, crime and terrorism related threats to the US safety and sovereignty. Law and order enforcement necessitates the breach of privacy of individuals and organizations through acts like exposing the suspects to intense questioning, searching of premises, varied forms of biological and chemical investigations, soliciting samples of the suspects’ and the victims’ genetic material, etc. Yet, this does not mean that in the quest for valid or incriminating evidence, one could violate the liberty and privacy of individuals. The American political and legal system is based on the fundamental principles of the Western liberal thought, which stress on insulating the rights of the individuals and the groups against incursions by the states and the media or their direct or indirect representatives (Bier 91). The right to privacy is a direct outcome of these sacrosanct principles, which has been validated and acknowledged by varied court judgments in the US. A whole range of US laws and legal mechanisms protect the right to privacy. As per the tort law, a person can seek legal protection and remedies against the breach of personal privacy carried out for the purposes of pecuniary gains, for defamation purposes or out of cheap and irresponsible curiosity (Bier 94). Such right to privacy is available to and has been extended to all the US citizens. However, the US law in case of the public personalities, as they are defined in a strictly legal sense, does imposes some constraints on the right to privacy (Bier 174). The public figures vested with legislative authority and state resources are expected to retain greater levels of transparency as compared to the common citizens. In the sphere of privacy, the US law strictly outlines the government privileges, while allocating major rights to the citizens. However, in 1967, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) curtailed the power of the governments to withhold state related information and data from the masses by labeling it as classified or a state secret. In 1975, the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) were further extended. This was perhaps a direct continuation of the US legal policy to safeguard the privacy of individuals and common citizens, while bringing the public figures and institutions within the ambit of transparency and accountability (Bier 175). In combination with the Privacy Act, the FOIA is known as Freedom on Information-Privacy Act (FOIPA), which assures state accountability while safeguarding the privacy of the individuals from intrusions by the state. However the question of balancing individual privacy and the need to know still remains as relevant today as it was 50 years ago. The Right to Freedom of Information The Right to Freedom of Information is in a way the expression of the direct US allegiance to the ideals of self governance (Foerstel 7). The prerogative of extending direct power to the people in a thriving democracy necessitates the adoption of measures that give them direct access to the state information and facts (Primus 53). Without such measures, a democracy will be nothing more than the rule of a privileged few over the ignorant majority. Before the Right to Freedom of Information Act was enacted, Americans were more often denied the information in the name of state privacy and security and this diluted the possibility of a direct rule of the people (Foerstel 14). It was owing to the Freedom of Information Act that Americans for the first time got the power and the privilege to have an insight into the working of the federal institutions and organizations that were being run and funded by their hard earned money (Primus 55). The Bill of Rights do extended to the citizens the Freedom of Speech, however free speech is impotent and futile if not backed by valid and credible information. Since the passing of the Freedom of Information Act, millions of common people have filed FOIA requests in the last couple of decades (Foerstel 6). As already discussed, privacy in a distorted form serves as an instrument of retaining control, and the provisions of FOIA intend to shift the control from the hands of the government to the masses. Information resides at the heart of all freedoms, and the public personalities by affiliating themselves to the public institutions, powers and resources in a way agree to be open to public scrutiny and knowledge (Foerstel 9). So though the idea of privacy does get complex and difficult to sort out in the case of the individuals, in the domain of government and public governance and in the area of public safety, the cause of information certainly holds a sway over the constraints of privacy. Conclusion The prevalent spirit in the American constitutional and legal framework towards balancing between privacy and the need to know is surely in the right direction. Though the individuals, families and public groups needs to be protected against unwarranted intrusions into privacy, unless breached in the interest of public safety and social good, in the sphere of public life and public governance, the people’s right to know certainly ought to dominate over the need for privacy and secrecy. It is hoped that in the times to come the Right to Information-Privacy Act (FOIPA) will get more fine tuned and streamlined. Works Cited Bier, William CSJ. Privacy: A Vanishing Value. New York: Fordham University Press, 1980. Boling. Patricia. Privacy and the Politics of Intimate Life. New York: Cornell University Press, 1997. Etzioni, Amitai. The Limits of Privacy. New York: Basic Books, 1999. Foerstel, Herbert N. Freedom of Information and the Right to Know. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999. Francis, Leslie Pickering. “Privacy and Confidentiality: The Importance of Context”. The Monist .91.1 (2008): 91-93. Inness, Julie C. Privacy, Intimacy and Isolation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Neeley, Dequendre. “The Privacy Principle”. Security Management 43.4 (1999): 47-50. Primus, Richard A. The American Language of Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Scoglio, Stefano. Transforming Privacy: A Transpersonal Philosophy of Rights. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1998. Outline I. Introduction A. Privacy/Right to Know B. Illustration through examples C. Thesis Statement II. Privacy and Freedom of Information as concepts A. Privacy 1. A human need 2. A relative interpretation of privacy 3. Psychological context 4. Individualistic context 5. Privacy as a freedom 6. Privacy and information age B. Freedom of Information 1. Political context 2. Human context 3. Commercial context 4. IT and Freedom of Information C. Freedom of Information and Democracy III. Privacy in the US context A. Legal protection to privacy B. FOIA, FOIPA IV. Freedom of Information Act A. History B. Advantages V. Conclusion Read More