From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Mon Jul 16 2001 - 09:43:47 MDT
On Monday, July 16, 2001 2:23 AM Anders Sandberg asa@nada.kth.se wrote:
> Here in Europe, privacy is not commonly regarded as a right. On the other
> hand integrity (another of those fuzzy terms like human dignity) is
> regarded as a right, and might for all practical purposes replace privacy
> in the discussion.
I wonder if the preference for such "fuzzy terms" is because they are
malleable to whoever controls the state at the time. I think, too, rights
discussion in the US is muddled. Granted, a certain degree of fuzziness is
unavoidable, but I think there's a benefit for some people -- anyone who
wants to extract benefits for himself/herself and friends -- to maintain
areas where the state can expand into, especially if its limits (rights) are
defined loosely to avoid any hard comittments.
> As I see it, integrity is the ability to determine for oneself what
> information to let in and out from oneself and to determine what one does
> with it. I show integrity when I decide for myself whether to be swayed or
> not by the opinions of others rather than just accept or allow myself to
be
> coerced into accepting them. My right to integrity means I can refrain
from
> revealing my thoughts or medical information, or demand ownership of such
> information forcing e.g. a doctor not to reveal it to a third party.
I don't see how this differs from privacy. The input of information does,
but the output does not. In fact, from this, it would appear that integrity
here means privacy plus control over inputs. Some might even argue that
controlling inputs is a matter of privacy too. After all, I should be able
to choose what to read, watch, or listen to in my home, etc.
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
See "The Many Births of Free Verse" at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/FreeVers.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:48 MST