(not a country of course, but somewhere privacy is a constitutional right. question then is how a state can protect this right)
Not saying that a right to privacy doesn't exist. I think it exists because a combination of other rights DO exist. But rights can't obligate others, and if your information ends up in the public sphere, I don't believe you have a natural right to have it taken down.
If you contracted with a third party, and as part of that exchange, your info was supposed to be secured, you have a right to secure damages within the scope of that contract.
It's obviously not workable, though; you can see that the goal listed before "privacy" which all Californians have the legal right to obtain is "happiness". This would appear to imply that you have the same legal rights against someone who violates your privacy as against someone who makes you unhappy.
http://www.theonion.com/article/proposed-bill-would-bring-40...
> The bill, H.R. 702, stipulates that immediately upon its passage into law, the 4,000 brave soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq come marching triumphantly over the horizon, directly into the arms of their loved ones, looking the same as they did on the day they left home.
[1] https://www.wileyrein.com/practices-federal-preemption.html [2] http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/11-...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Conv...
And the sky hasn't fallen, my service is quite good and the telcos are still making profits.
Thing is,the US Constitution as brilliant as it is was written a long time ago and nobody wants to update it. And Capitol Hill seems preoccupied.
Yeah, nice theory :)
---
I wouldn't worry/care about individual hackers, but even if you have complete trust in everyone who has or will have legal access there are a lot of organizations for which hacking cameras one-by-one (even if hacking is actually needed) is well worth the effort.
I know your idea is the same as that of the USA law, but that really doesn't make it right
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12
> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
The "correct" way is, if a black man knocks up a guy's white daugher, he puts her on a plane to a state where abortion is legal. But in his own state, he fights for it to be illegal, so all the poor people have to have babies, and stay poor. Because classism is good. It makes sure some products can only be afforded by some people. Better people. And better people have more money, and buy more and better things.
Free market means being free to pay as little as absolutely possible for labor. And for that you need a lot of poor people. Everyone becoming wealthy is bad for better people. What's the point of being better if you can't be wealthier than most other people?
And if you think a white wealthy GOP dad won't overnight their daughter to a state to get an abortion, especially when it's from a brown dad, then you're ignorant to the point of cultural blindness.