Wikipedia:Peer review/Privacy/archive1
Privacy[edit]
I've just rewritten this article to include more information about each area of privacy, such as medical, political and privacy from government. I'd like to get this to become a featured article - what do people think of this article? Talrias (t | e | c) 11:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Looks good overall. What about financial privacy though? A desire to keep financial dealings and status private is important in some cultures. It also keeps you from being targeted by thieves. Also there's the type of privacy needed just to avoid annoying phone calls (private line) or spam mail (closely-held e-mail addresses). — RJH 15:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks! I've added in information about privacy from corporations (including email spam and telemarketing). I need to do some research about financial dealings/status in other cultures before adding this - I'll hopefully be able to do it in the next few days. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Good work. The info about 9/11's effect on privacy is good, but it underrepresents a larger phenomena: the effect of war on privacy. Every major war has a chilling effect on civil liberties and privacy, and this deserves mention. Certainly, 9/11 and the War on Terror are significant, but not so significant that only they should be mentioned, and every other war left unmentioned. The 9/11 info should be a subset of a larger section on War and Privacy. —thames 20:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is already on WP:FAC so I'm commenting there, but I think that war is not the only security concern. More coverage is also needed of terrorism etc. I've added links to security theatre for example since many privacy breaches seem to be quite bad ideas. Mozzerati 22:21, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
- This is a page of examples without actually addressing in any meaningful detail what "privacy" is in adjusting the relationship between "public" and "private". Some defend privacy as a means of control over information about oneself (Parent, W., 1983, ‘Privacy, Morality and the Law’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 12: 269-88), while others see it as underpinning human dignity (Bloustein, E., 1964, ‘Privacy as an Aspect of Human Dignity: An Answer to Dean Prosser’, New York University Law Review 39:962-1007), or as crucial for intimacy (Inness, J., 1992, Privacy, Intimacy and Isolation, Oxford: Oxford University Press). Others define it a set of norms against which to judge whether controlling access can enhance personal expression and choice (Schoeman, F., 1992, Privacy and Social Freedom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). But the concept is complicated because while, in terms of egoism, we value it so we can be free from interference by others, the teleological problem is that the outcome can be a cloak behind which we hide domination, degradation, or physical harm to women and others. The utilitarian view is that an act or action is right insofar as it maximises good outcomes (utility). Hence, I have waived privacy to contribute to this page and I would consider laws to limit anonymity on the web as the greater good because harms such as hacking, drug dealing and child pornography can be difficult to eliminate if we cannot trace and identify the users. But the Kantian deontological (non-consequentialist) view would consider privacy without regard to the existence of outcomes in terms of the private/public dichotomy. Rather Kant would impose duties to respect the freedom of others so that privacy becomes compatible with the greatest possible freedom of all. That this might have unfortunate concequences is not considered relevant — a consistent problem with moral or political absolutism. Hence, expanding the text to include material on terrorism-related intrusions into our private lives is only giving one more example of a continuing debate on the nature of freedom and responsibility in an increasingly relativist world. David91 10:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)