(Also) Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: 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.
It’s generally understood that without privacy people are effectively disenfranchised politically, because any expression of an contentious opinion or association with subversive or dissident thinkers becomes potentially so harmful that wise people would avoid both and keep almost entirely to themselves or family.
> arbitrary
There is no absolute right to privacy.
>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.
Basically, interference of privacy based on reason or system is allowed.
It does give you the right to not be subjected to interference of your privacy from random choice or personal whim is not.
According to the article, that right has not been broken.
Moreover, you do not have a right to privacy.
Rather, you have a the right to not have your privacy arbitrarily interfered with.
This is a pretty important distinction.