|
|
@@ -1 +1,9 @@
|
|
|
\section{The Current Discussion}
|
|
|
+Fortunately nowadays seems that the discussion for the right to privacy it is not dead. After the recent events that mainly involved leaks on how the NSA is spying us all, new discussions and questions have been arised not only in the world of activism, but also, at least to some extent, in the general public.
|
|
|
+But usually all these discussions have a very limited scope in some sense, talking of this or that technology issue with the most popular platform for instant messaging, but do not cover the real problem, that is establishing whether and at which extent privacy (in our case privacy related to the online or in general technological presence of the person) can be seen as a foundamental right for the individual.
|
|
|
+This last aspect I think it is the most important and foundamental to discuss, since I see that the technology itself (more advanced than ever encryption methods, new platforms that promise anonimity etc...) can't solve the problem.
|
|
|
+Only a discussion that involves the social and ethical aspects of the matter can be the basis for adequate measures that can guarantee or at least protect our right to privacy.
|
|
|
+We can find a really interesting perspective in this direction in a not so recent research, made by \textit{James Rachels} in this paper \cite{privacyimportant}, published something like 40 years ago.
|
|
|
+What I really find so interesting and important about his discussion is the idea that what we as individuals share with other people is what defines the relationships that we have. He says that the fact that we feel so intimate with another person (for example in a relation of friendship or also in a romantic relationship) is given by the degree of information that another person has on us, and obviosuly also by the degree of information that we have on this person. The differences between this level of "common knowledge" between two or more individuals is what defines the relationship that exists between them. I completely agree on this point of view, and I also find that is somewhat reasonable and embraceable, since we can experience in everyday life that the level of intimacy that we feel with another person depends in great part on the aspects of each other lifes that we share or not. Just as an example I think that we can agree that one would not share with a simple colleague worries about his healt, but probably he will share them with family members or intimate friends.
|
|
|
+Of course we may have objections to this kind of point of view, but in his paper Rachels tries to respond to them, in my opinion in a reasonable and conving way.
|
|
|
+Starting from this basic building block in the next section I'll try to make another step in this direction of establishing the important of the right to privacy.
|
