Evolution of Privacy Rights and It’s Analysis Through Hohfeld’s Theory of Rights and Duties
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48165/msilj.2024.1.1.2Keywords:
Privacy, rights, power, privilege, libertyAbstract
Privacy is essential to a person’s identity. Experts in human behavior concur that people have an innate need for personal space and control over their private lives. This includes the right to manage personal information and live without undue interference. Protecting privacy is crucial as it fosters self-respect, independence, and the ability to make one’s own choices. Right to privacy evolved in broadly 6 stages, from right against the government to individuals right against society i.e individualistic approach towards privacy. In the beginning, India’s view of privacy was centered on a person’s liberty—their freedom from governmental interference. This is seen in seminal decisions where the court stressed the restrictions on government searches, such as M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954). This early phase represents the freedom of a right-holder to operate without hindrance, and the state’s obligation to uphold individual autonomy in line with that freedom. The development of the internet and large-scale data collection methods drastically changed the privacy environment. People started to worry more and more about who could access and utilize their personal data and this change reflects in 2017’s Supreme Court judgement in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors ruled that the right to privacy is a fundamental right. It is inextricably linked to the right to life and to personal freedom guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Dignity has inherent characteristics related to sexual orientation, family, marriage, and childbearing. They combine to create the privacy of a home. This ruling represents a step in the right direction: people now have more control over their data, and others (including businesses) are required to get permission and make sure the data is protected. Four basic legal connections are outlined by Hohfeld’s theory: power, privilege, liberty, and right. This research article uses this paradigm to apply to privacy rights in order to investigate how these rights have changed in terms of what people can do (liberty), what other people cannot do (right), what people can choose not to do (privilege), and what people can be prohibited from doing (power). We can better grasp how the legal foundation for privacy rights has changed and is still developing
References
Adam Carlyle Breckenridge. The Right to Privacy. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1971.
Allen, L.E. and Saxon, C.S., 1995, May. Better language, better thought, better communication: the A-Hohfeld language for legal analysis. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law (pp. 219-228).
De Capitani Di Vimercati, S., Foresti, S., Livraga, G. and Samarati, P., 2012. Data privacy: Definitions and tech niques. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 20(06), pp.793-817.
Denning, Lord. “What next in Law”. Butterworths, 1982. District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank, (2005) 1 SCC 496, AIR 2005 SC 186.
Dworkin, Ronald. Taking Rights Seriously. London: Duckworth, 1977.
Etienne, M., 2012. Arrest Records and the Right to Know. The Right to Privacy in the Light of Media Convergence-: Perspectives from Three Continents.
Guerrier, C., 2016. Security and privacy in the digital era (Vol. 1). John Wiley & Sons.
Harv. L. Rev 193 (1890)
Henket, M., 1996. Hohfeld, public reason and comparative con stitutional law. Int’l J. Semiotics L., 9, p.202.
Hoffmann in their opinion in Naomi Campbell’s case [Campbell V. MGN Ltd.2004 UKHL 22],
Hudson, S.D. and Husak, D.N., 1980. Legal rights: How useful is Hohfeldian analysis?. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 37(1), pp.45-53.
Id., at 4363-64 (para 310), citing Ram Deo Chauhan v. Bani Kanta Das [(2010) 14 SCC 209)]
Id., at 4401 (para 426), citing Samuel Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy” 4
Id., at 4409-4410 (para 474), citing Mark P. McKenna, “The Right of Publicity and Autonomous Self-Definition” 67 U. PITT. L. REV. 225, 282 (2005).
Joyce, D., 2015. Privacy in the digital era: Human rights online. Melb. J. Int’l L., 16, p.270.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors (2017) 10 SCC 1, AIR 2017 SC 4161
Kaul, J., Right to Privacy case (2017) at 4407-08 (para 466), citing Lord Nicholls and Lord
Kaul, J., Right to Privacy case (2017), at 4400 (para 420). Kharak Singh v. the State of Uttar Pradesh (1962) 1 SCR 332, AIR 1963 SC 1295
Lazarev, N., 2005. Hohfeld’s analysis of rights: An essential approach to a conceptual and practical understanding of
the nature of rights. Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, 12(1).
M. P. Sharma v Satish Chandra, AIR (1954) SC 300. Mooradian, N., 2009. The importance of privacy revisited. Ethics and information technology, 11(3), pp.163-174.
Morse, H.N., 1987. Applying the Hohfeld system to constitu tional analysis. Whittier Law Review, 9, p.639.
Nariman, J., Right to Privacy case (2017) at 4363 (para 309). Prosser, W., Engineering Privacy in Social Applications. 2016– 2017 Editorial Calendar, p.72.
Rajagopal v. State of T.N., AIR 1995 SC 264, (1994) 6 SCC 632. Right to Privacy case (2017) at 4335 (para 232).
Right to Privacy case (2017) at 4364 (para 311).
Right to Privacy case (2017) at 4364 (para 312).
Right to Privacy case (2017) at 4415 (para 459).
Salomon, D., 2012. Data privacy and security. Springer Science & Business Media.
Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis. “The Right to Privacy”. Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193-220.
Solove, D.J., 2002. Conceptualizing privacy. Calif. L. Rev., 90, p.1087.
Stone, R.L., 1963. An analysis of Hohfeld. Minn. L. Rev., 48, p.313.
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India, (2016) 5 SCC 1, (2016) 2 SCC (LS) 253.
which recognized the importance of the protection of privacy. Zaeem, R.N. and Barber, K.S., 2020. The effect of the GDPR on privacy policies: Recent progress and future promise. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems (TMIS), 12(1), pp.1-20.
Zhou, B. and Pei, J., 2008, April. Preserving privacy in social networks against neighborhood attacks. In 2008 IEEE 24th International Conference on Data Engineering (pp. 506- 515). IEEE.
