Beyond Accountability, the Return to Privacy?

Abstract

There is great confusion as to the exact meaning of privacy. As Solove puts it, privacy is a concept in disarray. It is a sweeping concept and nobody can articulate what it means.² In this respect,³ privacy has successively been conceptualised in terms of ‘right to be let alone’,⁴ control over personal information,⁵ the construction of one’s identity,⁶ informational self-determination,⁷ or contextual integrity.⁸ What clearly emerges from these attempted conceptualisations of privacy is that privacy is a multidimensional, multi-faceted concept, the complexity of which is therefore hard to grasp within a single conceptual setting. Some do argue that privacy should not be defined at all, since such definition would bear the risk of limiting and ‘freezing’ its meaning and effects (especially in the legal field).⁹ Indeed, as Solove points out, some theories are too narrow (solely focusing on information, or access to the self), others are too broad (e.g., the right to be let alone, which is an emanation of personhood), whereas others are both too broad and too narrow at times.¹⁰

This contribution is based on the first deliverable of the EU FP7 PRESCIENT project, in which the VUB is participating. See http://www.prescient-project.eu/prescient/index.php (last accessed 7 October 2011).