Comments on: Privacy Norms Should Come Before Privacy Laws http://timothyblee.com/2009/10/02/privacy-laws-should-follow-privacy-norms/ A Blog by Timothy B. Lee Sat, 19 May 2012 01:03:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Steve R. http://timothyblee.com/2009/10/02/privacy-laws-should-follow-privacy-norms/comment-page-1/#comment-5024 Steve R. Tue, 06 Oct 2009 12:48:47 +0000 http://timothyblee.com/?p=985#comment-5024 Your post tantalizing raises the the issue of privacy norms before regulation. That is precisely what should be discussed, however most of what I read tends to be repetitive anti-regulatory ranting so the issue of someone's "right" to invade your privacy never even gets discussed. This unfortunate silence implies an implicit "right" of anyone to invade your privacy. It is my understanding that Libertarian thought, in part, is based on responsibility. There is a saying that your freedom of speech ends when your fist touches my nose. While unsolicited intrusions into your privacy are not as onerous as a fist, it is nevertheless an unwarranted intrusion into your personal space. My point is that the social norm of privacy is that privacy belongs to the intended recipient of a message, NOT the instigator. Therefore, I find the discussion of privacy to be deceptive since it focuses on hyping "regulation" as an onerous restraint of freedom rather than focusing on the responsibility of the instigator to exhibit a level of self control. Before regulation there is responsibility. Please see my post: <a href="http://srynas.blogspot.com/2009/08/misplaced-regulatory-blame-ii.html" rel="nofollow">Misplaced Regulatory Blame II</a> Your post tantalizing raises the the issue of privacy norms before regulation. That is precisely what should be discussed, however most of what I read tends to be repetitive anti-regulatory ranting so the issue of someone’s “right” to invade your privacy never even gets discussed. This unfortunate silence implies an implicit “right” of anyone to invade your privacy.

It is my understanding that Libertarian thought, in part, is based on responsibility. There is a saying that your freedom of speech ends when your fist touches my nose. While unsolicited intrusions into your privacy are not as onerous as a fist, it is nevertheless an unwarranted intrusion into your personal space. My point is that the social norm of privacy is that privacy belongs to the intended recipient of a message, NOT the instigator. Therefore, I find the discussion of privacy to be deceptive since it focuses on hyping “regulation” as an onerous restraint of freedom rather than focusing on the responsibility of the instigator to exhibit a level of self control. Before regulation there is responsibility.

Please see my post: Misplaced Regulatory Blame II

]]>