Abstract
This chapter provides the background needed for the exploration of the emergence of the right to the protection of personal data as a fundamental right in European Union (EU) law by focusing on the notion of privacy. First, it offers an overview of divergent approaches to this multifaceted notion, noting inter alia how concurring views can be classified depending on whether they rely or not on the public/private distinction. Second, it introduces a detailed historical account of how the word ‘privacy’ was re-defined at the end of the 1960s in the United States (US) with the specific meaning of control upon personal information, and how this approach was developed and inscribed in US law as concerned with the doctrine of ‘fair information principles’. Third, the chapter examines developments taking place at the same time in Europe, where in some countries the word ‘privacy’ was soon adopted, but where other countries were instead busy analysing through other legal lenses the possible threats linked to increasing computerisation.
Ah, whoever it was who invented the idea of privacy, of a privacy, of a private home—was the greatest genius of all time.
(Mekas 2010)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Ibid. Sect. 3.1.2.
- 3.
Ibid. Sect. 3.1.4.
- 4.
- 5.
The adjective ‘private’ derives from the Latin privatus. In Latin, privatus was typically used in contrast to publicus and communis, and meant ‘private, individual, own’ (Dictionnaire Gaffiot Latin-Français 1934, p. 1239), as well as ‘simple citizen’ (ibid.) and ‘withdrawn from public life’ (Schoeman 2008, p. 116).
- 6.
The English word ‘privacy’ was rarely used as such before the sixteenth century (Onions 1966, p. 711).
- 7.
The adjective ‘private’ surfaced in English in the fourteenth century, precisely meaning ‘not open to the public’, and in the fifteenth century with the sense of ‘not holding a public position’ (ibid.).
- 8.
The Latin privatus represented a particular usage of the past participle of the verb privare, originally meaning ‘bereave, deprive’, and from which stemmed for instance the French priver, defined in nineteenth century French dictionaries as referring to taking something away from the wild nature and taking it to the familiar space of the home (Duby 1999, p. 17). The Latin noun privatum referred to private assets, including the home, and the idiom in privato meant ‘inside the house’ (ibid. 18).
- 9.
Sometimes metaphorically. See, for instance: (Serfaty-Garzon 2003).
- 10.
Alluding to a ius solitudinis: (Pérez Luño 2010, p. 339).
- 11.
According to Gavison, ‘(i)n its most suggestive sense, privacy is a limitation of other’s access to an individual’ (Gavison 1980, p. 428).
- 12.
- 13.
Autonomy is sometimes envisioned as closely related to freedom and self-determination (De Hert and Gutwirth 2003, p. 95).
- 14.
- 15.
As attempts to circumscribe it can be mentioned the concepts of identity-in-transformation (Luhmann 1998, p. 37), or the ‘ipse’ and ‘idem’ dimensions discussed by French philosopher Paul Ricoeur, highlighting that identity is dependent both the perception of the self as unique, and the continuity of space and time, or what is shared with others (Ricoeur 1990).
- 16.
See, notably: (Pino 2006).
- 17.
These two basic facets of identity can be traced back to the writings of John Locke (Locke 1998, pp. 200–202 especially).
- 18.
Historically sometimes referred to as ‘sanctity’ of the home. On the origins of legal ‘sanctity’ as inviolability (and its relation with ‘sanction’), see: (Thomas 2011, pp. 62–63).
- 19.
Describing privacy as an umbrella term: (Solove 2006, p. 486).
- 20.
See also: (Hansson 2008, p. 110).
- 21.
For US sociologist Charles Wright Mills, for instance, privacy ‘in its full human meaning’ referred to the possibility of individuals to transcend their milieu by articulating their own private tensions and anxieties, and, to the extent that mass media in general, and television in particular, encroached upon such private articulation of resentments and hopes, they were to be regarded as a ‘malign force’ causing privacy’s destruction (Wright Mills 2000, p. 314).
- 22.
German sociologist Norbert Elias, for example, emphasised that what transforms children into specific, distinct individuals are their relations with others, and that the different structures of interiority shaping individual consciousness are precisely determined by the outside world (Elias 1991, p. 58 and 65). The exclusionary effects of the private/public distinction have notably been discussed in relation to the detrimental consequences for women (Bennett and Raab 2006, p. 21). From this perspective, the qualification of what is private emerges as not neutral, but imposing that some issues must be kept hidden, and tends to exclude women from the public life of decision-making or social interactions. See, notably: (Scott and Keates 2005; Halimi 1992, p. xiii and xiv).
- 23.
Or de-prived of ‘public life’.
- 24.
See, notably: (Arendt 1998, p. 38). For Arendt, modernity blurred the old borderline between the private and the public understood as ‘political’, and actually decisively replaced the ancestral private sphere with something preferably labelled as a ‘sphere of intimacy’, as well as the long-established public/political sphere with a new sphere of the social, whose content was regarded by the ancients as a private matter. See also: (Habermas 1992, p. 55).
- 25.
On alleged misconceptions of individuality as including the notion of dreams locked inside the body, or the impenetrability of the self: (Sloterdijk 2007, p. 263).
- 26.
Their metaphorical extensions are also many. See, for instance: (Beslay and Hakala 2007).
- 27.
Or ‘Sphärentheorie’. See, notably: (Doneda 2006, p. 67).
- 28.
- 29.
- 30.
- 31.
Despite maintaining a sense of ‘familiarity’ and ‘confidence’, the English ‘intimacy’ eventually also acquired an extra meaning, related to sexual intercourse (Coronel Carcelén 2002, p. 19).
- 32.
Noting its importance for the Italian Frosini: (Martínez Martínez 2004, p. 205).
- 33.
See, interpreting the case law on the theory of the spheres as the basic German formulation of the right to privacy: (Riccardi 1983, p. 245).
- 34.
Article 10 of the Dutch Constitution (since 1983).
- 35.
The recognition in Germany of a general right to personality has been linked to the traditionally limited protection granted through civil remedies (Rigaux 1997, pp. 139–140).
- 36.
Article 1(1) of the 1949 Fundamental Law of Bonn.
- 37.
Ibid. Article 2(1).
- 38.
In reality, Germany has witnessed many controversies on rights to personality, since the early nineteenth century (Strömholm 1967, p. 29).
- 39.
On this subject: (Universidad del País Vasco, Cuatrecases, and Mainstrat 2008, p. 3).
- 40.
- 41.
Observing that ‘for the vast majority of possible conflicts a clear distinction between private and public persons, documents, premises and activities cannot be made’ (Strömholm 1967, p. 74).
- 42.
- 43.
Nissenbaum actually refers to the existence of ‘powerful moral reasons’ obliging to limit the flow of private information in public (2010, p. 217).
- 44.
See also: (Gaston 2006, p. 11).
- 45.
- 46.
- 47.
‘Toute publication dans un écrit périodique relative à un fait de la vie privée constitue une contravention punie d’amende de cinq cents francs’ (Warren and Brandeis 1890, p. 214).
- 48.
The formula is generally attributed to Thomas M. Cooley.
- 49.
See also: (Emerson 1979).
- 50.
Such as the First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion and association), the Third Amendment (which protects the privacy of the home by preventing the government from requiring soldiers to reside in people’s homes), the Fourth Amendment (freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures), and the Fifth Amendment (privilege against self-incrimination), as well as, more occasionally, the Ninth Amendment, which states that the ‘enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people’; due process and equal protection clauses also provide shields for privacy interests (Fisher 1995, p. 1172; Solove et al. 2006, pp. 33–34).
- 51.
See in particular Brandeis’ dissenting opinion in the case Olmstead v. United States (277 U.S. 438).
- 52.
- 53.
The landmark case on this subject is of 1973: Roe v. Wade (410 US 113, 1973). See: (Freedman 1987, p. 73).
- 54.
The 1960 US Federal Decennial Census.
- 55.
Noting that actually some security actors such as the US National Security Agency (NSA) had been at the forefront of research on computing: (Ceruzzi 2012, p. 38).
- 56.
Westin also refers to Richard W. Hamming, who had been involved since 1945 as a computer expert in the US research project for the production of an atomic bomb, and had warned since 1962 of some societal threats linked to the advent of computers.
- 57.
- 58.
Packard had acquired a relative notoriety in the US in 1957 with a book on the advertising industry, titled The Hidden Persuaders (Sawyer and Schechter 1968, p. 812).
- 59.
The Special Committee on Science and Law had been set up in 1959, following a previous experience in establishing a committee of lawyers to concern themselves with atomic energy (Ruebhausen 1970, p. viii).
- 60.
As well as Professor of Public Law and Government at Columbia University (Ruebhausen 1970, p. x).
- 61.
The research included a survey of the privacy-invading capacity of modern science, an exploration of the meaning of privacy, and an analysis of the interaction of the individual’s claim to a private personality, society’s need to acquire information and to control individual behaviour, as well as of new technology (Ruebhausen 1970, p. x).
- 62.
Gallagher had been particularly concerned with the impact upon privacy of the use of polygraphs for lie detection, and with personality tests being inflected upon employees and job applicants (Gallagher 1965).
- 63.
The proposals came from social scientists and government officials. The Executive Committee of the American Economics Association had recommended in 1959 to the US Social Science Research Council that it set up a committee to discuss the preservation and use of economic data. The committee issued a report on the subject in 1965, which it forwarded to the Bureau of the Budget for consideration (Sawyer and Schechter 1968, p. 812). A Budget Bureau consultant, Edgar S. Dunn, Jr., was asked to prepare a report on the matter. He recommended implementation of a national data centre. See: (Dunn 1967).
- 64.
Concrete recommended measures included the creation of a committee on problems of privacy and the computer within the American Federation of Information Processing Societies (AFIPS), which had been established in 1961 to disseminate knowledge in the field of information science, and the holding of a symposium on the subject (Westin 1970, p. 320).
- 65.
Privacy and Freedom granted attention to various techniques perceived as particularly privacy-invasive at the time, such as the use of polygraph and personality testing, labelled as methods of psychological surveillance (Westin 1970, p. 133), but included also a Chapter titled The Revolution in Information Collection and Processing: Data Surveillance, on the issue of privacy linked to computerisation (Westin 1970, p. 158).
- 66.
This is the definition authored by Westin that is quoted more often. He also provided some descriptions not fully consistent with it (for instance, referring to privacy as the voluntary and temporary withdrawal of a person from the general society through physical or psychological means (Westin 1970, p. 7)). Also noting these inconsistencies, see: (Rössler 2004, p. 16). Privacy is additionally depicted by Westin as a right of decision over one’s private personality, and as a property right over personal information being processed (Westin 1970, p. 324).
- 67.
This idea was later further emphasized by Charles Fried: ‘Privacy is not simply an absence of information about us in the minds of others; rather it is the control we have over information about ourselves’ (Fried 1968, p. 482).
- 68.
Noting that ‘information privacy’ is often opposed to ‘decisional privacy’: (Solove et al. 2006, p. 1).
- 69.
Westin argued simultaneously that claims to privacy derived from man’s animal origins, and that the American approach to privacy had to be linked to a tradition of limiting public surveillance powers dating back to the ancient Greeks (1970, p. 7).
- 70.
The author described surveillance through the use of information as having been for centuries ‘the conscious trademark of European authoritarian systems’ (Westin 1970, p. 324).
- 71.
15 U.S.C. § 1681 et sEq. Enacted as Title VI of Pub.L. 91–508, 84 Stat. 1114, enacted October 26, 1970, originally designed as an amendment to add a title VI to the Consumer Credit Protection Act, Pub.L. 90–321, 82 Stat. 146, enacted June 29, 1968.
- 72.
Miller identified as major privacy concerns: so-called ‘decision-making by dossier’, unrestricted transfer of information from one context to another, and surveillance conduct (see also: (Hixson 1987, p. 183)).
- 73.
He also observed that this attribute of control was in a way already present in the analysis by Warren and Brandeis.
- 74.
Miller also sensed that eventually computers would facilitate the provision of many services directly to individuals, commenting: ‘it seems reasonable to envision some form of national computer “utility” providing a variety of data-processing services to everyone, perhaps through the medium of inexpensive home terminals such as touch-tone telephones or in conjunction with cable television’ (1971, p. 33).
- 75.
The Subcommittee had been established in 1955, and since then it had been interested in individual privacy, notably carrying out hearings on wire-tapping and government secrecy (Kaniuga-Golad 1979, p. 780).
- 76.
Sam J. Ervin, Jr. had been elected Chairman in 1961, and since then the Subcommittee concentrated on examining governmental infringement on individual privacy: its studies covered for instance the collection of personal information by the federal government through forms and questionnaires required of federal employees and job applicants (Westin 1970, p. 320). See also: (Ervin 1965).
- 77.
Kaniuga-Golad (1979) op. cit. 780.
- 78.
- 79.
Elliot L. Richardson.
- 80.
Ware, of the RAND Corporation, had previously chaired a Task Force on Computer System Security (Task Force on Computer Security of the Defense Science Board 1970).
- 81.
The report also mentions the first activity report of the Data Protection Commissioner of the federal state of Hesse, published in 1972 (and the second one, published in 1973).
- 82.
An explanatory report was published a month later by the Committee’s Chairman: (Ware 1973).
- 83.
The report added: ‘such as identifying characteristics, measurements, test scores; that evidence things done by or to an individual, such as records of financial transactions, medical treatment, or other services; or that afford a clear basis for inferring personal characteristics or things done by or to an individual, such as the mere record of his presence in a place, attendance at a meeting, or admission to some type of service institution’ (Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems 1973, Chap. IV “Recommended Safeguards for Administrative Personal Data Systems”).
- 84.
See: Section ‘A Redefinition of the Concept of Personal Privacy’ (Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems 1973, Chap. III “Safeguards for Privacy”). ‘Personal information’ and ‘personal data’ are presented as interchangeable also in a 1975 ‘glossary of frequently encountered terms’ in the area of personal privacy (McCarthy 1975, p. 88).
- 85.
Any unbalance of control would generate information asymmetries, to be corrected; typically, the data subject is in a position of inferiority (Solove et al. 2006, p. 578).
- 86.
The principles identified by the Secretary’s Advisory Committee were five: (1) no personal-data record-keeping system can be secret; (2) there must always be a way for individuals to find out what information about them is in the record and how it is used; (3) there must always be a way for individuals to prevent information obtained for one purpose from being used or made available for other purposes without their consent; (4) there must always be a way for individuals to correct or amend a record of identifiable information about them, and (5) any organisation creating, maintaining, using or disseminating records of identifiable personal data must assure the reliability of the data for their intended use, and must take reasonable precaution to prevent any misuse.
- 87.
The report also mentioned the Federal Reports Act (44 U.S.C 3501–3511), and the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C 552).
- 88.
Section ‘Personal Privacy, Record Keeping, and the Law’ (Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems 1973, Chap. III “Safeguards for Privacy”).
- 89.
Holding that ‘(m)odern information systems, data banks, credit records, mailing list abuses, electronic snooping, the collection of personal data for one purpose that may be used for another’ had left millions of Americans deeply concerned with privacy, Nixon stated that time had come ‘for a major initiative to define the nature and extent of the basic rights of privacy and to erect new safeguards to ensure that those rights are respected’ (Nixon 1974a).
- 90.
Wiretapping and electronic surveillance were excluded from the Committee’s mandate, officially because they were being studied by another Commission (McCarthy 1975, p. 86).
- 91.
The US Senate had set up a Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, chaired by Sam J Ervin, Jr., particularly versed in privacy as attested by its prior inquiries.
- 92.
Effective since 27 September 1975.
- 93.
‘Records’ were defined as ‘any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual’ (Section 3 of the Privacy Act of 1974. The Act also included references to the category of ‘identifiable personal information’, which was not defined (see Section 2, point (b)(4) of the Privacy Act of 1974).
- 94.
See Section 2 (and in particular points (a)(1) and (a)(4) of the Congressional Findings) of the Privacy Act of 1974.
- 95.
Noting that the doctrine of ‘fair information practices’ was presented as privacy: (Piñar Mañas 2009, p. 86).
- 96.
Also echoing the confusion in the US literature and courts that is sometimes generated by the coexistence of different ‘privacies’ in US law: (Chemerinsky 2006, p. 650).
- 97.
A first concerned personnel and medical files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; the second, records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes that could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (Solove et al. 2006, p. 529). See also: (Relyea 1980, p. 148).
- 98.
See Section 5(a)(1) of the Privacy Act of 1974. As originally drafted, the Privacy Act would have created a Federal Privacy Board to act as an oversight and enforcement mechanism (Rotenberg 2001, 39).
- 99.
In 1977, the US Supreme Court extended constitutional privacy protection to information(al) privacy. Holding that the ‘zone of privacy’ protected by the Constitution encompasses the ‘individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters’: Whalen v. Roe, 433 U.S. 425 (1977) (Solove et al. 2006, p. 34).
- 100.
Emphasis added.
- 101.
And that ‘(e)veryone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks’ (Article 12 of the UDHR).
- 102.
English, French and Spanish have the status of official languages of the UN together with Arabic, Chinese (Mandarin), and Russian.
- 103.
Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966.
- 104.
Article 17 of the ICCPR reads: ‘(1) No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation; (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks’ (cf. Article 12 of the UDHR: the word ‘unlawful’ has been added).
- 105.
In 1988 was adopted General Comment No. 16 on Article 17 ICCPR, referring to an explicit mandate to regulate by law the gathering and holding of personal information on computers, databanks and other devices (Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 16 (Twenty-third session, 1988), in Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, UN Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 at 21 (1994)).
- 106.
Formally the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
- 107.
Headquartered in Washington, D.C. (US).
- 108.
Article 11 of the American Convention on Human Rights: ‘Right to Privacy: (1) Everyone has the right to have his honor respected and his dignity recognized; (2) No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation; (3) Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks’.
- 109.
A similar phenomenon can be perceived in other official linguistic versions. The official languages of the Organization of American States are English, Spanish, Portuguese, and French. See also: (Rigaux 2000, p. 126 and 128).
- 110.
The Nordic Conference’s final declaration included under the notion of ‘privacy’ Prosser’s torts, but went beyond them (Michael 1994, p. 13).
- 111.
International Conference on Human Rights, 22 April to 13 May 1968.
- 112.
Resolution XI concerning human rights and scientific and technological developments, adopted by the International Conference on 12 May 1968, para 2. The International Conference culminated in the adoption of a general Proclamation stating that scientific discoveries and technological advances could endanger the rights and freedoms of individuals (Proclamation of Teheran, Final Act of the International Conference on Human Rights, Teheran, 22 April to 13 May 1968, United Nations Document A/CONF. 32/41, paragraph 18).
- 113.
General Assembly of the United Nations, Resolution 2450 (XXIII) on Human rights and scientific and technological developments, 1748th plenary meeting, 19.12.1968 (see especially paragraph 1(a)). Paragraph 1(c) also mentions uses of electronics that may affect the rights of the person, and the limits which should be placed on such uses in a democratic society.
- 114.
Developments such as the miniaturisation of recording devices, wiretapping and eavesdropping mechanisms and similar devices (Commission on Human Rights of the United Nations Economic and Social Council 1970, p. 23).
- 115.
The 1972 report classified the nature of technical threats to privacy using Westin’s tripartite division into physical surveillance, psychological surveillance, and data surveillance.
- 116.
The UN adopted Guidelines for the Regulation of Computerized Personal Data Files in 1990 (adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 45/95 of 14 December 1990).
- 117.
Emphasis added.
- 118.
In this sense: (Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems 1973, sec. Appendix B “Computers and Privacy”: The Reaction in Other Countries). In May 1970 a conference jointly sponsored by the federal Departments of Justice and Communications and the Canadian Information Processing Society was held at Queen’s University on the topic ‘Computers: Privacy and Freedom of Information’; the Task Force had its origin in the deliberations of that conference (Task Force established by the Department of Communications and Department of Justice (Canada) 1972, p. 2).
- 119.
See also: (Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems 1973, sec. Appendix B “Computers and Privacy”: The Reaction in Other Countries).
- 120.
See also: (Younger 1972, p. 1).
- 121.
By Kenneth Baker in the House of Commons, and by Lord Windlesham in the House of Lords.
- 122.
More precisely, during the second reading debate in the House of Commons of the Right of Privacy Bill introduced by Brian Walden (Younger 1972, p. 1).
- 123.
Its final report stated it was relevant to note that England had traditionally not chosen that way as its way to protect the main democratic rights of citizens (Younger 1972, p. 10).
- 124.
Organised in November 1970 under the title ‘Privacy, Computers and You’.
- 125.
Including Alan F. Westin and Cornelius E. Gallagher (Hanlon 1970).
- 126.
The principles were: the purpose of holding data should be determined; there should only be authorised access to data; there should be minimum holdings of data for specified purposes; persons in statistical surveys should not be identified; subject access to data should be given; there should be security precautions for data; there should be security procedures for personal data; data should only be held for limited relevant periods; data should be accurate and up to date; and any value judgments should be coded (Warren and Dearnley 2005, p. 242).
- 127.
The Younger report had concrete repercussions in the UK 1974 Consumer Credit Act, which included provisions to allow individuals to access the information related to them, and a mechanism to facilitate the expression of disagreement.
- 128.
One titled Computers and Privacy (CMND 6353), announcing the government’s intention to consider legislation and its supplement, Computers: Safeguards for Privacy (CMND 6354), dealing with computer use in the public sector.
- 129.
Describing this Data Protection Committee as a ‘forerunner of a permanent authority’: (Flaherty 1979, p. 53).
- 130.
Initially Younger was to be made Chairman of this Committee, but he died in May 1976 (Warren and Dearnley 2005, p. 259).
- 131.
As noted also in (Critchell-Ward and Landsborough-McDonald 2007, p. 518).
- 132.
- 133.
The Conference took place from 30 September to 3 October 1970. It was organised jointly by the Belgian government and the Council of Europe, and was the third edition of a series of Conferences supported since 1965 by the Council of Europe on different aspects of the protection of human rights, with special focus on the application of the ECHR. For the presentations in English: (Robertson 1973).
- 134.
Emphasis added.
- 135.
The event devoted special attention to computers and Westin’s definition of privacy (Ganshof van der Meersch 1974, p. 5 and 147 (contribution by R. V. Jones)).
- 136.
The Committee’s final report was published in 1976.
- 137.
Article 10(1) of the Dutch Constitution.
- 138.
Ibid. Article 10(2).
- 139.
Ibid. Article 10(3).
- 140.
(Van Hoof et al. 2001, p. 765).
- 141.
Article 22 of the Belgian Constitution (adopted in three official languages: Dutch, French and German). The terminological choice was possibly linked to the fact that previously the judiciary had established the direct applicability of Article 8 of the ECHR on the right to respect for private life (Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and Privacy International (PI) 2007, p. 262).
- 142.
See above, Sect. 2.2.1 of this chapter.
- 143.
- 144.
Illustrating interest on the subject since the end of the 1960s: (Malherbe 1968, 1968).
- 145.
With the Law 70/643 of 17 July 1970.
- 146.
The provision reads: ‘Chacun a droit au respect de sa vie privée. Les juges peuvent sans préjudice de la réparation du dommage subi, prescrire toutes mesures, telles que séquestre, saisie et autres, propres à empêcher ou faire cesser une atteinte à l’intimité de la vie privée ; ces mesures peuvent, s’il y a urgence, être ordonnées en référé’.
- 147.
Such as the loi du 29 juillet 1881 sur la liberté de la presse, or Article 1382 of Code Civil (Nerson 1971, p. 739).
- 148.
Respect for private life concerns most importantly intimacy if one focuses on the second paragraph, describing the nature of interference with private life that can lead to judicial measures (aiming at ‘empêcher ou faire cesser une atteinte à l’intimité de la vie privée’ (Abravanel-Jolly 2005, p. 63).
- 149.
Conclusions Cabanes prises dans CA Paris, 7ème chambre, 15 mai 1970 (Détraigne and Escoffier 2009, p. 14). The duality of vie privée is sometimes portrayed in terms of a distinction between the secret de la vie privée (or the secrecy of privacy) and the liberté de la vie privée (or privacy as freedom). See for instance: (Kayser 1995, p. 11; Abravanel-Jolly 2005, p. 63).
- 150.
France ratified the ECHR on 3 May 1974, through the authorisation given by loi n° 73–1227 of 31 December 1973. In France, the ECHR has supremacy over national legislation (Brügemeier 2010, p. 16).
- 151.
Décision n° 71–44 DC1, relative à une loi “complétant les dispositions des articles 5 et 7 de la loi du 1er juillet 1901 relative au contrat d’association”. See also: (Brügemeier 2010, p. 15).
- 152.
This position was explicitly adopted by the French Conseil constitutionnel decades later, in its decision 99–416 DC of 23 July 1999, by declaring that ‘la liberté proclamée par (l’article 2 de la Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen) implique le respect de la vie privée’ (Détraigne and Escoffier 2009, p. 14).
- 153.
See Chap. 3, Sect. 3.4, of this book.
- 154.
(Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems 1973, sec. Appendix B “Computers and Privacy”: The Reaction in Other Countries).
- 155.
Offentlighets- och sekretesslagstiftningskommittén.
- 156.
References
Abravanel-Jolly, Sabine. 2005. La protection du secret en droit des personnes et de la famille. Paris: Defrénois.
Alexy, Robert. 2010. A Theory of Constitutional Rights (originally published 2002). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Arendt, Hanna. 1998. The Human Condition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Bendich, Albert M. 1996. Privacy, poverty and the constitution. California Law Review 54 (2): 407–442.
Bennett, Colin J. 1992. Regulating Privacy: Data protection and Public Policy in Europe and the United States. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Bennett, Colin J., and Charles D. Raab. 2006. The Governance of Privacy: Policy Instruments in Global Perspective. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Bennett, Tony, Lawrence Grossberg, and Meaghan Morris. 2001. New Keywords: A Revised Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Beslay, Laurent, and Hannu Hakala. 2007. Digital territory: Bubbles. In European visions for the knowledge age: A quest for new horizons in the information society, ed. Paul T. Kidd, 69–78. Cheshire Henbury.
Bioy, Xavier. 2006. L’identité de la personne devant le Conseil constitutionnel. Revue Française de Droit constitutionnel 1 (65): 73–95.
Blume, Peter. 2002. Protection of Informational Privacy. Copenhaguen: DJØF.
Brügemeier, Gert. 2010. Protection of personality rights in the law of delict/torts in Europe: Mapping out paradigms. In Personality Rights in European Tort Law, eds. Gert Brüggemeier, Aurelia Colombi Ciacchi, and Patrick O’Callaghan, 5–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bureau de la Terminologie du Conseil de l’Europe. 1995. Lexique Anglais-Français (principalement juridique). Strasbourg: Conseil de l’Europe.
Bygrave, Lee A. 2002. Data Protection Law: Approaching its Rationale, Logic and Limits. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Bygrave, Lee A. 2010. Privacy and data protection in an international perspective. Scandinavian Studies in Law 56:165–200.
Ceruzzi, Paul E. 2012. Computing: A Concise History. London: The MIT Press.
Chemerinsky, Erwin. 2006. Rediscovering Brandeis’s right to privacy. Brandeis Law Journal 45 (July): 643–657.
Clarke, Roger. 2006. What’s ‘Privacy’? Workshop at the Australian Law Reform Commission. http://www.rogerclarke.com/DV/Privacy.html. Accessed March 10, 2013.
Colvin, Madeleine, and Jonathan Cooper, eds. 2009. Human Rights in the Investigation and Prosecution of Crime. New York: Oxford University Press.
Commission on Human Rights of the United Nations Economic and Social Council. 1970. Human rights and scientific and technological developments: Report of the secretary-general (Addendum 1). E/CN.4/102.
Committee on Data Protection. 1978. Report of the committee on data protection (chairman Sir Norman Lindop)”. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Coronel Carcelén, Felipe Francisco. 2002. La protección del derecho a la vida privada en Internet y otros medios de comunicación electrónicos. Santiago: Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.
Critchell-Ward, Ann, and Kara Landsborough-McDonald. 2007. Data protection law in the European Union and the United Kingdom. Comparative Law Yearbook of International Business 29:515–578.
De Graaf, Frederik. 1987. Privacy en Persoonsgegevens: Het Ontwerp van Wet Persoonsregistraties. Lelystad: Koninklijke Vermande.
De Hert, Paul, and Serge Gutwirth. 2003. Privacy concerns. In Security and privacy for the citizen in the post-September 11 digital age: A prospective overview, report to the European Parliament Committee on Citizen’s Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), Report EUR 20823 EN, ed. European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute For Prospective Technological Studies.
De Schutter, Olivier. 1998. La vie privée entre droit de la personnalité et liberté. In Privacy: Seminarie Egmontpaleis 26 & 27 Nov. 1998. 46–84, Brussel: Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken.
De Schutter, Olivier. 2010. International Human Rights Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Derrida, Jacques. 1994. Politiques de l’amitié. Paris: Éditions Galilée.
Détraigne, Yves, and Anne-Marie Escoffier. 2009. Rapport d’information fait au nom de la Commission des lois constitutionnelles, de législation, du suffrage universel, du règlement et de l’administration générale par le Groupe de travail relatif au respect de la vie privée à l’heure des mémoires numériques. Paris: Sénat.
Dictionnaire Gaffiot Latin-Français. 1934. Hachette.
Doneda, Danilo. 2006. Da privacidade à proteção de dados pessoais. Rio de Janeiro: Renovar.
Duby, Georges. 1999. Ouverture. In Histoire de la vie privée : 2. De l’Europe féodale à la rennaissance, eds. Philippe Ariès and Georges Duby. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
Dunn Jr., Edgar S. 1967. The idea of a national data center and the issue of personal privacy. The American Statistician 21 (1): 21–27.
Edelman, Bernard. 1999. La personne en danger. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), and Privacy International (PI). 2007. Privacy & Human Rights 2006: An international survey of privacy laws and developments. Washington, D.C. and London: EPIC / PI.
Elias, Norbert. 1991. La société des individus. Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard.
Emerson, Thomas I. 1979. The right of privacy and freedom of the press. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 14 (2): 329–360.
Ervin Jr., Sam J. 1965. Why Senate hearings on psychological tests in government. American Psychologist 20 (11): 879–880.
Fisher, Louis. 1995. Constitutional Rights: Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Flaherty, David H. 1979. Privacy and Government Data Banks: An International Perspective. London: Mansell.
Flaherty, David H. 1989. Protecting Privacy in Surveillance Societies: The Federal Republic of Germany, Sweden, France, Canada and the United States. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Freedman, Warren. 1987. The right of privacy in the Computer Age. London: Quorum Books.
Fried, Charles. 1968. Privacy. The Yale Law Journal 77 (3): 475–493.
Frowein, Jochen A. 1985. Art. 8 Privat- und Familienleben. In Europäische MenschenRechstKonvention: EMRK-Kommentar, eds. Jochen A. Frowein and Wolfgang Peukert. Kehl am Rhein: Engel.
Gallagher, Cornelius E. 1965. Why House hearings on invasion of privacy. American Psychologist 20 (11): 881–882.
Ganshof van der Meersch, Walter J. 1974. Privacy en Rechten van de Mens: 3e Internationaal Colloquium over het Europees Verdrag tot Bescherming van de Rechten van de Mens [1970-Brussel]. Acco.
Gaston, Sean. 2006. Derrida and Disinterest. London: Continuum.
Gavison, Ruth. 1980. Privacy and the limits of law. The Yale Law Journal 89 (3): 421–471.
Glancy, Dorothy J. 1979. The invention of the right to privacy. Arizona Law Review 1 (21): 1–29.
Grenier Jr., Edward J. 1969. Computers and privacy: A proposal for self-regulation. In Proceedings of the first ACM symposium on problems in the optimization of data communications systems.
Gutwirth, Serge. 2002. Privacy and the Information Age. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1992. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge: Polity.
Halimi, Gisèle. 1992. La cause des femmes précédé de Le temps des malentendus. Paris: Gallimard.
Hanlon, Joseph. 1970. British workshop airs data bank problems (9 December 1970). Computer world: The newsweekly for the computer community: 2.
Hansson, Mats G. 2008. The Private Sphere: An Emotional Territory and its Agent. Dordrecht: Springer.
Harvard Law Review’s Note. 1968. Privacy and efficient government: Proposals for a national data center. Harvard Law Review 82 (2): 400–417.
Hildebrandt, Mireille. 2006. Privacy and identity. In Privacy and the Criminal Law, eds. Erik Claes, Anthony Duff, and Serge Gutwirth, 43–58. Antwerp: Intersentia.
Hixson, Richard F. 1987. Privacy in a Public Society: Human Rights in Conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hondius, Frits W. 1975. Emerging Data Protection in Europe. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
International Commission of Jurists (ICJ). 1972. The protection of privacy. International Social Science Journal XXIV (3): 414–602.
Jay, Rosemary. 2007. Data Protection Law and Practice. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Kahn, Jonathan. 2003. Privacy as a legal principle of identity maintenance. Seton Hall Law Review 33 (2): 371–410.
Kaniuga-Golad, Ludmila. 1979. Federal legislative proposals for the protection of privacy. Fordham Urban Law Journal 8 (4): 773–817.
Kayser, Pierre. 1995. La protection de la vie privée par le droit : Protection du secret de la vie privée (3e édition). Aix-en-Provence. Marseille: Presses Universitaires d’Aix-Marseille.
Kirby, Michael Donald. 1980. International guidelines to protect privacy in trans border data flows. Australian & New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science, Jubilee Congress, Adelaide, 15 May 1980.
Koops, Bert-Jaap. 2011. The evolution of privacy law and policy in the Netherlands. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 13 (2): 165–179.
Krause, Harry D. 1965. The right to privacy in Germany—Pointers for American legislation? Duke Law Journal 3:481–530.
Lane, Frederick S. 2009. American Privacy: The 400-year History of our Most Contested Right. Boston: Beacon Press.
Lefebvre-Teillard, Anne. 2003. Personne. In Dictionnaire de la culture juridique, eds. Denis Alland and Stéphane Rials. Paris: Quadrige/Lamy-PUF.
Littman, M., and P. F. Carter Rusk, eds. 1970. Privacy and the law: A report by the British section of the International Commission of Justice. Stevens.
Locke, John. 1998. Identité et différence: L’invention de la conscience II (edited, translated and commented by Etienne Balibar). Paris: Seuil.
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. 2012. Foreword. In Privacy Injunctions and the Media, ed. Iain Goldrein, vii–viii. Oxford: Hart.
Luhmann, Niklas. 1998. Love as Passion: The Codification of Intimacy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Malherbe, Jean. 1968. La vie privée et le droit moderne. Paris: Enseignement et perfectionnement techniques.
Martínez Martínez, Ricard. 2004. Una aproximación crítica a la autodeterminación informativa. Madrid: Thomson Civitas.
McCarthy, Alice. 1975. Privacy—A perspective. In Privacy, a public concern: A resource document (Proceedings of a seminar, Washington, DC, December 1974), ed. Kent S. Larsen. Council of State Governments.
McWhirter, Darien A., and Jon D. Bible. 1992. Privacy as a Constitutional Right: Sex, drugs and the Right to Life. New York: Quorum Books.
Mekas, Jonas. 2010. I had nowhere to go 1947–50/1991 (Excerpt). In Jonas Mekas, eds. Museum Ludwig and Serpentine Gallery, 18–21. Koenig Books.
Michael, James. 1994. Privacy and human rights: An international and comparative study, with special reference to developments in information technology. Aldershot: Dartmouth/UNESCO.
Miller, Arthur R. 1971. The Assault on Privacy: Computers, Data Banks and Dossiers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Nerson, Roger. 1971. La protection de la vie privée en droit positif français. Revue Internationale de Droit Comparé 23 (4): 737–764.
Nippert-Eng, Christena. 2010. Islands of Privacy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Nissenbaum, Helen. 2010. Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Nixon, Richard M. 1974a. State of the union message of 30 January 1974.
Nixon, Richard M. 1974b. Radio address about the American Right of Privacy of 23 February 1974.
O’ Cinneide, Colm, Myriam Hunter-Henin, and Jörg Fedke. 2006. ‘Privacy’ in J. M. Smits (ed), (Edward Elgar 2006). In Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, ed. J. M. Smits, 554–565. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Onions, Charles Talbut. 1966. The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ontario Law Reform Commission. 1968. Report on protection of privacy in Ontario (1968). Toronto.
Overkleeft-Verburg, Margriet. 1995. De Wet Persoonsregistraties: Norm, Toepassing en Evaluatie. Katholieke Universiteit Brabant.
Packard, Vance. 1971. The Naked Society (originally published in 1964). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Pember, Don R. 1972. Privacy and the Press: The Law, the Mass Media, and the First Amendment. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Pérez Luño, Antonio Enrique. 2010. Derechos Humanos, Estado de Derecho y Constitución. 10th ed. Madrid: Tecnos.
Piñar Mañas, José Luis. 2009. Protección de datos: Origen, situación actual y retos de futuro. In El derecho a la autodeterminación informativa, eds. Pablo Lucas Murillo de la Cueva and José Luis Piñar Mañas, 81–179. Madrid: Fundación Coloquio Jurídico Europeo.
Pino, Giorgio. 2002. Giudizi di valore e dottrine civilistiche: Il caso dei diritti della personalità. Diritti & Questioni Pubbliche 2 (agosto): 132–173.
Pino, Giorgio. 2006. Il diritto all’identità personale ieri e oggi: Informazione, mercato, dati personali. In Libera circolazione e protezione dei dati personali, ed. Rocco Panetta. Milano: Giuffrè.
Prosser, William L. 1960. Privacy. California Law Review 48 (3): 383–423.
Relyea, Harold C. 1980. Freedom of information, privacy, and official secrecy: The evolution of federal government information policy concepts. Social Indicators Research 7:137–156.
Riccardi, J. Lee. 1983. The German Federal Data Protection Act of 1977: Protecting the right to privacy? Boston College International & Comparative Law Review VI (1): 243–271.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1990. Soi-même comme un autre. Paris: Seuil.
Rigaux, François. 1990. La protection de la vie privée et des autres biens de la personnalité. Bruxelles: Bruylant.
Rigaux, François. 1992. La vie privée, une liberté parmi les autres? Bruxelles: Larcier.
Rigaux, François. 1997. La loi des juges. Paris: Éditions Odile Jacob.
Rigaux, François. 2000. L’individu, sujet ou objet de la société de l’information. In La protection de la vie privée dans la société de l’information : Tome 1, ed. Pierre Tabatoni, 122–137. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Robert, Jacques. 1977. Libertés publiques. Paris: Montchrestien.
Robertson, A. H. 1973. Privacy and human rights: Papers by experts on an issue of growing importance given under the auspices of the European convention on human rights. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Rodotà, Stefano. 2009. La vita e le regole: Tra diritto e non diritto. Milano: Feltrinelli.
Roos, Anneliese. 2003. The Law of Data (Privacy) Protection: A Comparative and Theoretical Study. University of South Africa.
Rössler, Beate. 2004. Privacies: An overview. In Privacies, ed. Beate Rössler, 1–18. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Rotenberg, Marc. 2001. The Privacy Law Sourcebook 2001: United States Law, International Law, and Recent Developments. Washington, D.C.: Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).
Ruebhausen, Oscar M. 1970. Foreword. In Privacy and freedom, ed. Alan F. Westin, i–xvi. New York: Atheneum.
Ruiz Miguel, Carlos. 1992. La configuración constitucional del derecho a la intimidad. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
Sawyer, Jack, and Howard Schechter. 1968. Computers, privacy, and the national data center: The responsibility of social scientists. American Psychologist 23 (11): 810–818.
Schoeman, Ferdinand David. 2008. Privacy and Social Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scott, Joan W., and Debra Keates, eds. 2005. Going Public: Feminism and the Shifting Boundaries of the Private Sphere. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems. 1973. Records, Computers, and the Rights of Citizens.
Serfaty-Garzon, Perla. 2003. Chez soi: Les territoires de l’intimité. Paris: Armand Colin.
Sloterdijk, Peter. 2007. Spheres Volume I: Bubbles—Microspherology. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).
Söderlind, Åsa. 2009. Personlig Integritet som Informationspolitik: Debatt och Diskussion i Samband med Tillkomsten av Datalag (1973:289). Institutionen Biblioteks- och informationsvetenskap/Bibliotekshögskolan, Högskolan i Borås och Göteborgs universitet.
Sofsky, Wolfgang. 2009. Defensa de lo privado: Una apología. Valencia: Pre-textos.
Solove, Daniel J. 2006, January. A taxonomy of privacy. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 154(3): 477–564.
Solove, Daniel J. 2008. Understanding Privacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Solove, Daniel J., Marc Rotenberg, and Paul M. Schwartz. 2006. Information Privacy Law. 2nd ed. New York: Aspen.
Strömholm, Stig. 1967. Right of Privacy and Rights of the Personality: A Comparative Survey. Stockholm: Boktryckeri AB Thule.
Stuart Mill, John. 1948. On Liberty (originally published in 1859). London: Watts & Co.
Sudre, Frédéric. 2005. Droit européen et international des droits de l’homme. 7th ed. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Task Force established by the Department of Communications and Department of Justice (Canada). 1972. Privacy and Computers. Ottawa: Information Canada.
Task Force on Computer Security of the Defense Science Board. 1970. Security controls for computer systems.
The Privacy Protection Study Commission. 1977. Personal privacy in an information society.
Thomas, Yan. 2011. Les opérations du droit. Paris: Seuil/Gallimard.
Tulkens, Françoise. 2000. La liberté d’expression et d’information dans une société démocratique et le droit au respect de la vie privée au regard de la Convention européenne des Droits de l’homme : Regards croisés sur les Articles 8 et 10 de la Convention dans la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des Droits de l’homme. In In Rapports de la Conférence sur la liberté d’expression et le droit au respect de la vie privée du 23 septembre 1999. Strasbourg: Conseil de l’Europe.
Turkington, Richard C., and Anita L. Allen. 1999. Privacy Law: Cases and Materials. St. Paul: West Group.
United Press International (UPI). 1961. Electronic brain ‘Peril’ to Liberty. Sarasota Journal, p. 8 April 17.
Universidad del País Vasco, Cuatrecases, and Mainstrat. 2008. Comparative study on the situation in the 27 Member States as regards the law applicable to non-contractual obligations arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality: Annex 3. JLS/2007/C4/028. European Commission, Directorate General Justice and Home Affairs, Directorate C: Civil Justice, Rights and Citizenship.
Van Hoof, D. C., D. Verbruggen, and C. H. Stoll, eds. 2001. Elsevier’s Legal Dictionary. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Velu, Jacques. 1973. The European Convention on Human Rights and the right to respect for private life, the home and communication. In Privacy and human rights, ed. A. H. Robertson, 12–128. Manchester: The University Press.
Ware, Willis H. 1973. Records, Computers and the Rights of Citizens. The Rand Paper Series 1973.
Warren, Samuel, and Louis Brandeis. 1890. The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review 4 (5): 193–220.
Warren, Adam, and James Dearnley. 2005. Data protection legislation in the United Kingdom. Information. Communication & Society 8 (2): 238–263.
Westin, Alan F. 1970. Privacy and Freedom, (originally published in 1967). New York: Atheneum.
Westin, Alan F., and Michael A. Baker. 1972. Databanks in a Free Society: Computers, Record-keeping and Privacy. New York: Quadrangle Books.
Working Party for Information Security and Privacy (WPISP). 2011. The evolving privacy landscape: 30 years after the OECD Privacy Guidelines, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry—Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policy, DSTI/ICCP/REG (2010) 6/FINAL, 6.4.2011”. DSTI/ICCP/REG (2010) 6/FINAL.
Wright Mills, Charles. 2000. The Power Elite (originally published in 1956). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Younger, Kenneth. 1972. Report of the Committee on Privacy. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
González Fuster, G. (2014). Privacy and the Protection of Personal Data Avant la Lettre . In: The Emergence of Personal Data Protection as a Fundamental Right of the EU. Law, Governance and Technology Series(), vol 16. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05023-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05023-2_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-05022-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-05023-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)