{"id":571,"date":"2025-01-07T13:27:39","date_gmt":"2025-01-07T05:27:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.hrug.legal\/?p=571"},"modified":"2025-04-22T12:56:54","modified_gmt":"2025-04-22T04:56:54","slug":"protection-of-the-private-sphere-versus-development-of-the-public-sphere","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.hrug.legal\/?p=571","title":{"rendered":"Protection of the Private Sphere versus Development of the Public Sphere"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Introduction \u2013 and the thesis<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The call for the right of a private sphere is one of today’s human rights issues, and as such becoming louder and louder. Leaving aside if this is justified \u2022 while people die as consequence of violent conflicts, \u2022 while people do not have access to clean water, health care, education, etc., \u2022 while inequality is on the rise, another question is concerned with our possible misconception of the right to privacy:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1st<\/sup> by and large, we still lack a clear definition of the private sphere, i.e. a classification of what should be protected<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2nd<\/sup> , equally lacking is a clear answer to the question what kind of intrusion is really problematic: \u2022 the collection of data, \u2022 a specific use of data \u2022 and\/or the question of who uses the data, for which purpose and in which way the collection and use of data is controlled\/monitored.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, a question that is going even further concerns the private-public-divide. The thesis that will be discussed is:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

the quest for the protection of the private sphere is [and needs to be] issued not primarily as a matter of intrusion but is consequence of the lack of a truly public sphere.<\/u><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What, today, seems to be the public sphere is in fact the sphere of publicity and self-presentation. Self-presentation is very much private in the sense of encapsulating, cocooning, without engaging with the surrounding \u2013 or put differently: only using the surrounding as mirror. A truly public sphere would be different insofar as it is collaborative, relational: the public is shaped by the individual, as much as the individual is shaped by the public – all occurring in what is called uno-actu-principle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At least for a substantial part, withdrawing into a private sphere is nothing else than: \u2022 refusing to accept responsibility; \u2022 avoiding a fair game.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, there remains a challenge: it is not the protection of the private sphere but the provision of a fair battle ground.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Going too far?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Of course, the thesis will be perceived as bold, going too far: isn\u2019t the permanent intrusion into the private sphere, taking very different forms, something that must worry us nearly every day. It is the experience of online shopping, nearly reaching the stage of predicted shopping; it is the experience of artificial intelligence, working with data we produce simply by existing and moving around, shaping our environment; it is the production of news and often fake news, reflecting the big data we produce instead of providing a picture of the reality; it is the permanent replication of what happens and how we act, discouraging unfolding free will, non-linear development and flexibility. Other ways of intrusion could be mentioned; however, too often we ignore the fact that the public sphere is increasingly \u2013 and again taking very different forms \u2013 shaped by uncontrolled excessive violence, hate speech, racism and other forms of \u2018communication\u2019 that disregards the right of people to move in public spheres without being assaulted. Moreover, this kind of intrusion goes even so far that it affects private life, victimising individuals and groups in a way that results in helplessness or aggressive counter-movements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is veiled by focussing on the dangers of datafication and its use as instrument of permanent surveillance is the underlying fact: the reshaping of the historical subject. Carissa V\u00e9liz speaks of the transformation of \u2018citizens into users and data subjects\u2019 (V\u00e9liz, Carissa, 2020: Privacy is Power; London: Bantam Press; Corgiu edition, 2021: 4), though at the end she then problematises the data-issue, not the transformation as the real problem. The ab-use of data depends on the loss of the public that is inevitably a consequence of the utilitarian transformation \u2013 without the forgoing transformation of the political, and thus public citizen, the transformation into \u2018users and data subject\u2019 would not have been possible and not even meaningful. \u2013 Of course, it would be wrong to deny that it is \u2013 at times \u2013 difficult to draw the line as it is always a question of finetuning interests: Though human beings are social beings, they do exist as individual \u2018physiological\/biological entities\u2019; and though human beings do exist as individual \u2018physiological\/biological entities\u2019, they do so being \u2018formed\u2019 and even physically characterised or \u2018shaped\u2019 by their environment (which is itself a matter of natural conditions and in various ways human-made). This serves as field within the borders of which the finetuning takes place. Of course, at first glance it makes sense to say that<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

[i]nstead of rules being something that exist primarily in writing, rules are increasingly being baked into code and enforced automatically by computers. Instead of being free to drive in a bus or taxi lane and risk incurring a fine if you’re found out, your future car may simply refuse to go where it’s forbidden. (V\u00e9liz: 68)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Yes, an exception may be needed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Allowing some leeway makes room for exceptions that are hard to code into rules, like using the bus lane because you are driving someone in urgent need of care to the hospital. (ibid)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

So far, so good \u2013 but what is with the \u2018rule of people\u2019 using the bus lane with a dangerously high speed, without any other \u2018need\u2019 to show off; blocking bus lanes while they are parking, thus undermining the development of public transport as attractive option etc.pp.? Instead of suggesting that privacy is power, thus supporting doing nothing else than providing arguments for the private control over data of our public life, we should talk about the need to break the private property \u2013 it is the private ownership of material resources as much as it is the ownership of opinion-forming. And that means not least, that democracy must be developed as space and means of permanent engagement, going much further than being asked for a vote every four to five years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

****<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If we approach the question from an angle of political economy, using a broad historical brush, we can easily detect<\/p>\n\n\n\n