#righttoprivacy

[stevensaus]

Exclusive: Meta employees launch protest against mouse-tracking tech at US offices

Exclusive: Meta employees launch protest against mouse-tracking tech at US offices

[hanifafathima]

Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right: A Legal Perspective

"What Has the Supreme Court Said About the Right to Privacy?" has emerged as a critical query in contemporary constitutional law practice, particularly during the digital era. The concept of privacy in contemporary times has gone beyond merely relating to physical space. Rather, it includes such concepts as data privacy, bodily autonomy, communications, and human dignity. In India, the acknowledgment of privacy as a fundamental right became a watershed moment.

Right to Privacy

The concept of right to privacy can be explained in terms of a person's power to manage their information, decisions, and private life free from undue intrusion by any other body or even the state. Although there is no specific provision for “right to privacy” in the Indian constitution, this fundamental right has been interpreted judicially.

The issue regarding “What Has the Supreme Court Said About the Right to Privacy?” became significant as courts have taken contradictory views on this matter in their earlier judgments.

Development of Privacy Jurisprudence in India

Prior to 2017, there were mixed signals about the legal recognition of privacy in India. Decisions such as M.P. Sharma vs Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1962) were indicative of the fact that privacy may not be considered a fundamental right.

However, subsequent decisions started changing this perception. In one case, the court admitted that under some circumstances, privacy may be recognized as a legal right. Gradually, judicial philosophy changed, understanding privacy as an integral aspect of human dignity and freedom.

Landmark Case: K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India

Finally settling the issue of “What Has the Supreme Court Said About the Right to Privacy?” is the landmark case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India in 2017, in which the Supreme Court gave a unanimous verdict that:

Privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Privacy is covered under Article 14, Article 19, and Article 21, specifically within the right to life and personal liberty. Privacy is an inherent part of human dignity and freedom.

In this case, the Supreme Court overturned its previous decisions and declared that the right to privacy is indeed a constitutional right.

It also ruled that privacy is not an absolute right. However, it may be restricted based on certain conditions such as legality, necessity, and proportionality.

Scope of the Right to Privacy

After the groundbreaking judgment, the ambit of privacy got widened. It now covers:

Privacy of the body (medical and reproductive rights) Privacy of information (protection of data) Privacy of communication (phone conversation and private messaging) Decisional privacy (related to lifestyle choices and relationships)

The verdict highlighted that privacy is inherently linked with dignity and liberty, thus becoming an integral part of all fundamental rights.

Consequences for Law and Society

There have been various repercussions of recognizing privacy as a fundamental right:

Enhancement of Personal Rights Individuals have increased legal recourse against monitoring and abuse of their personal data. Influence on Pioneering Cases The verdict played a pivotal role in shaping decisions like legalizing same-sex relations and adultery. Data Security and Governance in the Digital Age The verdict paved the way for future privacy laws in India. Constitutional Limits on State Action State intervention can only occur through stringent constitutional standards.

Challenges and Limitations Even with its acknowledgement, there are various limitations to the right to privacy:

Balancing between privacy and national security and public interest

Managing issues related to data protection in the age of digital economy

Tackling the issue of mass surveillance

Enforcing privacy laws

The courts have constantly reiterated that there should be a balance between privacy and other interests.

Conclusion In Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right: A Legal Perspective, we finally learn the answer to this critical question, "What Has the Supreme Court Said About the Right to Privacy?" The historic ruling on this aspect by the Supreme Court of India has been rendered as a result of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India case. With such an historic verdict, Indian constitution came into the modern era wherein privacy became part of life and personal liberty under Article 21. Now, with personal data and identities at stake due to rapid technological advancements in this digital age, this judgement would certainly play a significant role in the future.

[stevensaus]

Dayton suspends Flock license plate readers, says data used for immigration enforcement

The Dayton Police Department has announced that it found that contrary to promises that access to Flock Automated License Plate Reader data would be kept rest...

Dayton suspends Flock license plate readers, says data used for immigration enforcement

[stevensaus]

Meta to Shut Down Instagram End-to-End Encrypted Chat Support Starting May 2026

Meta to Shut Down Instagram End-to-End Encrypted Chat Support Starting May 2026

[thellawtoknow]

The Right to Privacy: Foundations, Legal Evolution, and Contemporary Challenges

The Right to Privacy: Foundations, Legal Evolution, and Contemporary Challenges III. Historical Development and Legal RecognitionA. Pre-Modern Roots and Early Norms B. Emergence in Anglo-American Common Law C. Constitutionalization of Privacy in the United States D. Privacy in Other Constitutional Traditions E. Privacy in International Human Rights Law F. Contemporary Legislative Trends IV. Dimensions and Scope of the Right to PrivacyA. Bodily Privacy: The Inviolability of the Physical Self B. Informational Privacy: Control Over Personal Data C. Territorial Privacy: The Sanctity of Space D. Decisional Privacy: Autonomy in Personal Choices E. Communicational Privacy: Confidentiality in Expression F. Intersections and Emerging Domains V. Enforcement Mechanisms and Judicial InterpretationA. Judicial Interpretation: Shaping the Right’s Contours B. Legislative and Administrative Enforcement C. Limitations and Proportionality: Balancing Tests D. Extra-Judicial Mechanisms and Soft Law E. Enforcement Challenges in the Digital Age The Right to Privacy: Foundations, Legal Evolution, and Contemporary Challenges

I. Introduction

The right to privacy is one of the most fundamental yet ambiguously defined human rights. At its core, it concerns the individual’s ability to live free from unwarranted intrusion, interference, or surveillance—whether by the state, corporations, or other individuals. The notion of privacy undergirds the dignity, autonomy, and integrity of the human person, forming a cornerstone of liberal democracies. However, in a global landscape marked by rapid technological advancement, mass surveillance, and data commodification, the contours of this right are increasingly challenged and reshaped.

II. Conceptual and Philosophical Foundations

Philosophically, the right to privacy emerges from Enlightenment ideals of personal liberty, autonomy, and the sanctity of the individual. Thinkers like John Locke and John Stuart Mill defended the private sphere as essential for self-realization and moral agency. Mill, in On Liberty (1859), stressed the need for a domain of liberty where individuals are sovereign—an idea that closely resonates with modern understandings of privacy. Moreover, Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics highlight the intrinsic worth of the individual, implying that any invasion of one’s private life treats the person as a means to an end rather than an end in themselves. Privacy, in this light, is not merely a utilitarian good but a moral imperative. The home, the body, thoughts, beliefs, and intimate relations become spaces of moral inviolability. III. Historical Development and Legal Recognition The right to privacy, as a formal legal principle, is relatively modern, yet it draws upon a long history of cultural, legal, and philosophical norms concerning personal autonomy and sanctity. Its legal evolution is a response to shifting societal structures, technologies, and concepts of individuality. What began as an implied safeguard within broader legal traditions gradually evolved into a distinct and enforceable right, culminating in its recognition at national and international levels. This historical arc can be best understood through a layered analysis of its development in common law, constitutional interpretation, and international human rights law. A. Pre-Modern Roots and Early Norms Before the right to privacy was conceptualized as such, ancient and medieval legal systems provided indirect protections. For example: - Roman Law recognized domus (the home) as sacrosanct, barring intrusion without just cause. - In Judeo-Christian ethics, the private sphere—especially the family and the conscience—was often treated as sacred, a domain beyond the reach of the collective. - Islamic jurisprudence (Sharia) emphasized the inviolability of the home and prohibited spying or undue interference with others’ private affairs (tajassus). These notions were deeply embedded in the idea that personal spaces—physical or moral—ought to be shielded from both public scrutiny and state intrusion. However, these protections were not yet defined in terms of a legal “right to privacy.” B. Emergence in Anglo-American Common Law The turning point in the formal recognition of privacy occurred in the 19th century, prompted by social and technological change. The Industrial Revolution, the rise of mass media, and increasing urbanization began to dissolve traditional boundaries between public and private life. In 1890, Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis published their landmark article, “The Right to Privacy” in the Harvard Law Review. Their argument arose in response to the intrusiveness of tabloid journalism and photographic technology. They proposed a legally enforceable “right to be let alone,” drawing upon tort principles of defamation and breach of confidence. While their work did not instantly create a new legal doctrine, it influenced later courts to develop tort-based privacy protections such as: - Intrusion upon seclusion - Public disclosure of private facts - False light - Appropriation of likeness In the early 20th century, U.S. state courts began to adopt elements of this theory, recognizing privacy as a tort right. However, a more profound legal transformation occurred with the incorporation of privacy into constitutional law, particularly in the United States. C. Constitutionalization of Privacy in the United States Although the U.S. Constitution contains no explicit right to privacy, the Supreme Court has derived such a right from various amendments, interpreting them as forming a “penumbra of rights” that protect personal liberty. - In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Court struck down a law banning contraceptive use by married couples, grounding its reasoning in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments. Justice William O. Douglas famously spoke of “zones of privacy” that are constitutionally protected. - This logic was extended in Roe v. Wade (1973) to cover reproductive autonomy and abortion rights. Privacy here served as a vehicle for broader substantive due process rights. - In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Court invalidated laws criminalizing same-sex intimacy, again invoking the constitutional right to privacy as part of personal liberty. However, this expansive privacy jurisprudence has faced backlash, most notably in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), where the Court overturned Roe, arguing that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion. This decision reflects a broader retrenchment in the judicial recognition of privacy as a substantive right, returning it to the political arena and state legislatures. D. Privacy in Other Constitutional Traditions Outside the United States, many constitutions contain explicit references to privacy: - Germany’s Basic Law (Grundgesetz), in Article 1 and Article 2, safeguards the dignity of the human person and personal freedom. German jurisprudence, especially through the Federal Constitutional Court, has robustly defended privacy in areas such as data protection, communication, and intimate life. - India’s Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), affirmed that the right to privacy is a fundamental right embedded in Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Indian Constitution. This judgment placed privacy at the heart of individual dignity, autonomy, and democracy in the digital age. - South Africa’s Constitution, among the most progressive in the world, includes explicit protections for privacy (Section 14), including protection against searches, surveillance, and data collection. Such constitutional provisions signal a global trend: privacy is increasingly viewed as an essential safeguard for democracy, pluralism, and human dignity, especially in diverse and technologically integrated societies. E. Privacy in International Human Rights Law The internationalization of privacy rights emerged in the post-WWII era, particularly through the establishment of the United Nations and regional human rights bodies. - Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) – Article 12 (1948): “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence…” - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – Article 17 (1966): This article replicates the UDHR’s privacy clause and mandates that states adopt legal safeguards against arbitrary or unlawful interferences. - European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – Article 8: This provision recognizes the right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence. The European Court of Human Rights has developed an extensive jurisprudence elaborating on the meaning of privacy, including protection from: - Government surveillance (Klass v. Germany), - Media intrusion (Von Hannover v. Germany), - Sexual orientation discrimination (Dudgeon v. United Kingdom), - Data retention and profiling (S. and Marper v. United Kingdom). - American Convention on Human Rights, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and other regional frameworks also recognize privacy, albeit with varying degrees of enforcement. - The GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) – Adopted by the European Union in 2016 and implemented in 2018, GDPR is arguably the most sophisticated legal instrument for informational privacy. It sets global standards for consent, transparency, data security, and user rights, influencing legislation worldwide. F. Contemporary Legislative Trends Today, countries across the globe are rapidly adopting privacy laws in response to digital threats and public demand: - Brazil’s LGPD (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados), - California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), - Canada’s PIPEDA, - Kenya’s Data Protection Act (2019), - India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act (2023). These laws vary in scope and strength but reflect the increasing consensus that privacy is not only a civil liberty but a necessary condition for dignity and participation in the digital age. The right to privacy has evolved from implicit norms to explicit legal guarantees. Its journey reflects humanity’s struggle to balance liberty and order, autonomy and authority, technological innovation and ethical restraint. While national legal systems offer diverse approaches, the trajectory is unmistakably toward universal recognition. Yet, legal recognition alone is insufficient; the right must be continually interpreted, defended, and refined in the face of evolving threats and shifting societal values. IV. Dimensions and Scope of the Right to Privacy The right to privacy is not monolithic; rather, it unfolds across multiple dimensions—each reflecting a particular aspect of human dignity, autonomy, and personal space. While these dimensions overlap and often interact, their legal and philosophical justifications differ. As society evolves, especially with digital transformation and global interconnectivity, the scope of these dimensions becomes both broader and more contested. This section delineates the principal domains of privacy protection: bodily, informational, territorial, decisional, and communicational, and explores their contemporary relevance and legal treatment. A. Bodily Privacy: The Inviolability of the Physical Self Definition and Scope: Bodily privacy refers to the individual’s right to control their own physical being—free from coercive interference, surveillance, or data extraction. This includes protection against: - Unconsented medical examinations or procedures, - Mandatory biometric data collection (e.g., fingerprints, facial scans, DNA), - State or corporate use of bodily data for identification, surveillance, or commercial exploitation. Legal Implications: - In Rochin v. California (1952), the U.S. Supreme Court held that forced stomach pumping violated “decency and fairness,” laying groundwork for bodily integrity as a constitutional principle. - Informed consent in medical law reflects bodily privacy, now protected by laws governing healthcare autonomy (e.g., HIPAA in the U.S., or the Oviedo Convention in Europe). Contemporary Relevance: Modern threats include neuro-monitoring, implantable technologies, and wearable sensors, raising questions about the future limits of bodily autonomy. The use of biometric data for national ID programs, surveillance, or workplace monitoring challenges traditional notions of the body as a private domain. B. Informational Privacy: Control Over Personal Data Definition and Scope: Informational privacy refers to the right of individuals to control the collection, use, disclosure, and storage of their personal data. This includes: - Identity and demographic data, - Financial records, - Online behavior and preferences, - Health and genetic information. Legal Frameworks: - The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the EU sets a high global standard for informational privacy, emphasizing data minimization, purpose limitation, and explicit consent. - The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) grants U.S. residents certain rights over how their data is collected and sold by businesses. Contemporary Challenges: - Surveillance capitalism, as theorized by Shoshana Zuboff, commodifies personal data, eroding consent and transparency. - AI and machine learning algorithms increasingly rely on massive datasets, which often include sensitive personal information. The opacity of these systems undermines individual control and accountability. - The “right to be forgotten”—emerging from European case law—exemplifies a tension between personal dignity and public memory in the digital age. C. Territorial Privacy: The Sanctity of Space Definition and Scope: Territorial privacy safeguards the integrity of physical spaces—primarily the home—from intrusion by the state, employers, or others. It includes: - Freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures, - Surveillance protections in one’s dwelling, - Privacy expectations in quasi-private spaces (hotel rooms, offices, vehicles). Jurisprudence and Protections: - The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a cornerstone for territorial privacy, requiring probable cause for searches. - The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has protected home privacy even in cases involving public safety (Niemietz v. Germany). Modern Contexts: - Smart homes and IoT devices (such as Alexa or Google Nest) pose complex questions: while physically inside the home, data may be collected and analyzed externally. - Remote work surveillance and employer monitoring of home-based employees blur the boundary between public and private spaces. D. Decisional Privacy: Autonomy in Personal Choices Definition and Scope: Decisional privacy encompasses the freedom to make fundamental life decisions without interference—especially regarding intimate matters like: - Sexual orientation and relationships, - Reproductive choices (abortion, contraception), - Parental rights and child-rearing, - Religious and philosophical convictions. Key Legal Developments: - Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and Roe v. Wade (1973) in the U.S. established a zone of privacy for family and reproductive decisions. - Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) recognized same-sex marriage as part of liberty and privacy interests under the U.S. Constitution. - In India, the Puttaswamy judgment (2017) elevated privacy to a fundamental right, framing it as integral to decisional autonomy in a modern democracy. Ongoing Debates: - Post-Roe jurisprudence questions the stability of decisional privacy in deeply polarized legal systems. - Religious exemptions, moral legislation, and state surveillance of reproductive choices are increasingly contentious, particularly in authoritarian regimes. E. Communicational Privacy: Confidentiality in Expression Definition and Scope: Communicational privacy ensures the right to communicate without interception or unauthorized access. It protects: - Postal correspondence, - Telephone conversations, - Emails, texts, and online messaging, - Encrypted digital interactions. Legal Frameworks: - The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) in the U.S. and Article 8 of the ECHR provide foundational protection. - The Council of Europe’s Convention 108 safeguards personal communication data across borders. Technological Pressures: - Governments justify mass interception and metadata collection in the name of national security, often bypassing or weakening legal safeguards. - Encryption technologies, while protecting users, have sparked disputes with law enforcement agencies who demand backdoor access. - Employer monitoring software now observes employee emails and chats, testing the limits of communicational privacy in professional settings. F. Intersections and Emerging Domains The dimensions outlined above are increasingly overlapping in complex ways: - A health-tracking app may collect bodily, informational, and decisional data simultaneously. - AI surveillance combines territorial, informational, and communicational intrusions. Read the full article

[mco-legals]

🔍 Knowledge Bank Series by MCO Legals 📚 Cyber Law: Series 2, Issue 9

🚨 Illegally Recorded Telephone Conversations as Evidence Infringes Right to Privacy Explore the case of Dharmesh Sharma vs. Tanisha Sharma (CMPMO No. 665 of 2022) and understand how illegally obtained evidence impacts privacy rights under Indian law.

✨ Stay informed with MCO Legals’ Knowledge Bank, where we simplify legal insights for you.

📖 Read more: https://www.mcolegals.in

[talktomeguy]

EFF believe's police should know how surveillance tech works before unleashing it.

[seemabhatnagar]

Illegal phone tapping is infringement of Right to Privacy

While passing orders for interception of phone circumstance has to be disclosed which persuaded the authority to record that public safety requires interception of the phone. Only bald statement of “public safety involved” would not suffice the compliance of law. Moreover, the authority has to record reasons in writing before permitting interception of call details. Only competent Authority can pass such order & the competent authority has to send the order before the review committee & the review committee has to review the order in a stipulated timeShashikant Joshi v. State of Rajasthan & 5 others

Criminal Writ Petition 565/2022 Before High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur

Judgement pronounced on 04.07.2023 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar J

Background

The petitioner Shashikant Joshi has sought for quashing of the order dated 28.10.2020, dated 28.12.2020 and 17.3.2021 passed by the Secretary (Home), Government of Rajasthan permitting interception of Mobile Phones of the petitioner and others in purported exercise of power under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885.

By order dated 28.10.2020 Mobile No. 9829172463 of co accused Sunil Sharma was also ordered to be intercepted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau on suspicion that the said mobile was possibly being used for illegal activity relating to the incitement to the commission of an offence affecting public safety.

Interception was permitted for a period of 60 days. However, by another order dt.28.12.2020 this period was extended for another 60 days.

By two separate orders dated 17.3.2021, Mobile phones of the petitioner bearing No. 9587921137 and 9950830107 were ordered to be intercepted.

Submission of the Counsel for the petitioner

Right to privacy has been infringed by putting the mobile phones of the petitioner and others on surveillance/spying by the State machinery.

The orders are violative of Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India unless the same is consistent with the procedure established by law.

Referred judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court “People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PULC) Vs. Union of India & Anr,” where in provisions of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act was considered and it was held that the conditions/situations of “public emergency” or “the interest of public safety” are not secretive conditions.

In the present matter none of the 03 orders depict what were the situations which persuaded the authority to record that public safety requires such an order.

Only bald statement of “public safety involved” would not suffice the compliance of law. Moreover, the authority has to record reasons in writing before permitting interception of call details.

The Respondent authorities have acted in utter violation of requirement of procedural safeguards under Rule 419A. The order was passed by the Secretary Home.

The only competent person to pass the impugned orders was in charge of the Home Department of the State who is known as Principal Secretary, Home.

Submission of the Counsel for the respondent

There is no need for verbatim compliance of the mandate of law.

If substantial compliance has already been done, it would be taken as compliance of the mandate of law.

The authorities have placed before the Secretary (Home) written request for permission stating therein that the user of the referred mobiles is suspected to be involved in corrupt practices under Prevention of Corruption Act.

Observation of the Court

On the basis of information gathered on interception of mobile calls, FIR No. 20 of 2021 was registered on 12.4.2021 under Section 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as under Section 201 and 120B of the IPC with the Anti-Corruption Bureau Police Station, Jaipur. After investigation, charge-sheet No. 140/2021 dated 4.5.2021 was also filed.

On bare perusal of the call details disclosed in the FIR, it is evident that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner being indulged in bribing any public servant rather in the purported trap proceeding, no graft money was recovered from possession of any of the accused persons including the petitioner.

A bare perusal of the impugned orders is indicative enough that no circumstance has been disclosed ventilating the objective satisfaction that the impugned orders were necessary for public safety.

Occurrence of any public emergency" or "in the interest of public safety" are the sine qua non for the application of the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act.

Illegal tapping of phone conversation violates right to privacy and it is already accepted by a 9 Judges Constitution Bench decision in case of K.S. Puttaswamy Vs. Union of India, with the following observations:

“ Telehpone conversations were construed to be an important ingredient of privacy and the tapping of such conversations was held to infringe Article 21, unless permitted by `procedure established by law.”

Evidently, the impugned orders discloses that the authority concerned has not disclosed the material on the basis of which it can be concluded that it was in the interest of public safety to pass such orders. The authorities have failed to record any reason in writing consisted with the requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 5 above.

Impugned orders were never sent to the Review Committee which ought to have been sent within statutory period and the Review Committee was also expected to take decision on the validity of the impugned orders within a specified period

The respondents had not controverted that the impugned orders were not sent to the Review Committee nor any material suggest that the impugned orders were sent to the Review Committee.

The impugned orders do not contain any reason whereas the statutory provisions require reason to be recorded in writing for coming to the conclusion that the interest of public safety has persuaded the authority to pass the impugned orders.

Sub-rule (3) of Rule 419A (supra) requires that the authority passing any order under Section 5 (2) of the Telegraph Act shall consider possibility of acquiring the information by other means and the direction under sub-rule (1) shall be issued only when it is not possible to acquire the information by any other reasonable means.

When the statute provides procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary infringement of the rights to privacy, it must be strictly followed.

Required mandates could not have been ignored or superseded by the State or its machinery leading to offend the right under Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

It would be evident that the impugned orders suffer from manifest arbitrariness and if allowed to stand would amount to permit violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens and the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

Decision

All the three interception orders challenged herein and referred above stand hereby quashed.

Respondent authorities are directed to destroy the intercepted messages/recordings and its copies. Such messages shall not be considered in the pending criminal proceedings at any stage of the proceeding. The petitioner would be at liberty to adopt available legal remedy, for other reliefs sought for, in the writ petition.

Seema Bhatnagar