Skip to main content

Property and Privacy in Context

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Understanding Cybersecurity Law and Digital Privacy

Part of the book series: Future of Business and Finance ((FBF))

  • 1027 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter, we will explore the intersecting, albeit unique, concepts of ownership, property, and possession. We will distinguish between public, private, and personal data as seen in the eyes of the law, connecting those concepts to our foundational legal knowledge from the first chapter. At the end of this chapter, we will realize the intersection of (personal) property, (data) privacy, and (cyber) security and how these concepts are dealt with in modern legal systems around the world.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Williams, G. Thomas Hobbes: Moral and political philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cotton, J. (1991). James Harrington’s political thought and its context. Garland Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hirschmann, N. J. (2009). Gender, class, and freedom in modern political theory (p. 79). Princeton.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Sreenivasan, G. (1995). The limits of Lockean rights in property. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Tuckness, A. Locke’s political philosophy. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.) The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (winter 2020 edition). Available online at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/locke-political.

  6. Locke, J. (1963). Works, 10 volumes, London, 1823; reprinted. Scientia Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Tully, J. (1980). A discourse on property: John Locke and his adversaries. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Udi, J. (2015). Locke and the fundamental right to preservation: On the convergence of charity and property rights. The Review of Politics, 77(2), 191–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Proast, J. (1999a). In M. Goldie (Ed.), The argument of the letter concerning toleration briefly considered and answered, in the reception of Locke’s politics (Vol. 5). Pickering & Chatto.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Neil MacCormick, Adam Smith on Law, 15 Val. U. L. Rev. 243 (1981). Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol15/iss2/2.

  11. Smith, A. (2002). The wealth of nations. Oxford, England: Bibliomania.com ltd. [web.] retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://lccn.loc.gov/2002564559.

  12. Hill, L. (2007). Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson and Karl Marx on the division of labour. Journal of Classical Sociology, 7(3), 339–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hobsbawm, E. (2004). Marx, Karl Heinrich. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Oakley, A. (1984). Marx’s Critique of political economy: 1844 to 1860 archived 10 September 2015 at the Wayback machine (p. 51). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Moradi, M. (2020). Analysis of private property, Karl Marx. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.15530.77765.

  16. Alexander, G., & Donahue, Jr. Charles (2018, January 25). Property law. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/property-law

  17. Austin, L. M. “Property and the rule of law” (2014) 20:2 Legal Theory 79.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Clarke, A., & Kohler, P. (2005). Property law: commentary and materials. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Rose, C. M. (1985). Possession as the origin of property. The University of Chicago Law Review, 52(1), 73–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rudmin, F. W., & Berry, J. W. (1987). Semantics of ownership: A free-recall study of property. The Psychological Record, 37(2), 257–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Callies, D. L., & Breemer, J. D. (2000). The right to exclude others from private property: A fundamental constitutional right. Wash UJL & Pol’y, 3, 39.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Katz, L. (2008). Exclusion and exclusivity in property law. University of Toronto Law Journal, 58(3), 275–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Newman, C. M. (2016). Vested use-privileges in property and copyright. Harv JL & Tech, 30, 75.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Baron, J. B. (2013). Rescuing the bundle-of-rights metaphor in property law. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 82, 57.

    Google Scholar 

  25. von Benda-Beckmann, F., von Benda-Beckmann, K., & Wiber, M. G. (2006). The properties of property. Changing Properties of Property, 40, 1–39.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Alexander, G. S. (2011). Governance property. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 160, 1853.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Niles, R. D. (1933). The rationale of the law of fixtures: English cases. NYULQ Review, 11, 560.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hetland, J. R. (1965). Real property and real property security: The Well-being of the law. California Law Review, 53, 151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. O’Keefe, K. M. (1983). The classification issue and the law of fixtures: A chattel by any other name… . J. St. Tax’n, 2, 37.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Rahmatian, A. (2008). A comparison of German moveable property law and English personal property law. Journal of Comparative Law, 3, 197.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Niles, R. D. (1934). The intention test in the law of fixtures. NYULQ Review, 12, 66.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Moore, A. D. (1998). Intangible property: Privacy, power, and information control. American Philosophical Quarterly, 35(4), 365–378.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Carnahan, W. (1934). Tangible property and the conflict of Laws. University of Dayton Law Review, 2, 345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Arezzo, E. (2007). Struggling around the natural divide: The protection of tangible and intangible indigenous property. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law, 25, 367.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Child, J. W. (1990). The moral foundations of intangible property. The Monist, 73(4), 578–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hardy, I. T. (2000). Not so different: Tangible, intangible, digital, and analog works and their comparison for copyright purposes. University of Dayton Law Review, 26, 211.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Horwitz, M. J. (1981). History of the public/private distinction. U Pa L Rev, 130, 1423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. DeCew, J. W. (1986). The scope of privacy in law and ethics. Law and Philosophy, 5(2), 145–173.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lemley, M. A. (1999). Private property. Stanford Law Review, 52, 1545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Al-Fedaghi, S. (2018). Privacy things: Systematic approach to privacy and personal identifiable information. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security (IJCSIS), 16(2).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Gratton, E. (2013). If personal information is privacy’s gatekeeper, then risk of harm is the key: A proposed method for determining what counts as personal information. Alb LJ Sci & Tech, 24, 105.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, SC 2000, c 5, https://canlii.ca/t/541b8

  43. Austin, L. M. (2006). Reviewing pipeda: Control, privacy and the limits of fair information practices. Can Bus LJ, 44, 21.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (SC 2000, c 5).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Shackelford, S. J. (2016). Protecting intellectual property and privacy in the digital age: the use of national cybersecurity strategies to mitigate cyber risk. Chap. L. Rev., 19, 445.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kosseff, J. (2017). Defining cybersecurity law. Iowa L Rev, 103, 985.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Kosseff, J. (2016). Positive cybersecurity law: Creating a consistent and incentive-based system. Chap L Rev, 19, 401.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Salmond, J. W. (1907). The law of torts. Stevens and Haynes.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Lunney, M., & Oliphant, K. (2008). Tort law: text and materials. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Malone, W. S. (1970). Ruminations on the Role of Fault in the History of the Common Law of Torts. La. L. Rev., 31, 1.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lukings, M., Habibi Lashkari, A. (2022). Property and Privacy in Context. In: Understanding Cybersecurity Law and Digital Privacy. Future of Business and Finance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88704-9_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics