Privacy Right, the Family and Entertainment

• Author: Alejandro Laje
• Position: Professor of Jurisprudence and Civil Law. Vice Dean , Universidad Abierta Interamericana Law Schoo Buenos Aires, Argentina
• Pages: 165-172

JICLT

Journal of International Comm ercial Law and Technology

Vol. 9, No.3 (2014)

165

Privacy Right, the Family and Entertainment

Alejandro Laje

Professor of Jurisprudence and Civil Law.

Vice Dean , Universidad Abierta Interamericana Law Schoo

Buenos Aires, Argentina

alexlaje@yahoo.com

Abstract: Argentine and American courts have a similar understanding of privacy

and Privacy Right. However, the theoretical frameworks and actual rulings in both

countries differ in their perspectives and foundations. We provide here a comparative

mapping of key conceptual elements of Privacy Right as addressed by the courts of both

legal traditions, focusing on family issues. What makes the legal protection of privac y

inappropriate, as argued here, is the conceptual framework of Privacy Right. When

exploring the causes of this inadequacy, it is found that a largely unconscious process --

whereby privacy is frequently associated with other concepts, feelings and actions, such as

integrity, aut onomy, identity and data protection--, turns Privacy Right into a conflicted

right. Notwithstanding, privacy is considered to be the backbone of Western societies and,

in many ways, the actual democratic standing of a nation depends upon the way it is

protected. The conflicting status of privacy is particularly clear in the field of Family Law,

where a st rict conceptualization of privacy i s required in order to assure compatibilit y

between the proper functions of the family members and State re gulations.While civil

tradition seeks the norms that will best address the protection of pri vacy, common-law

tradition struggles to find cases that will provide the background for its adequate protection.

Based on civil and constitutional law analysis, we are contending here that privacy c an be

clearly and properly addressed by establishing a legal standard that will consider illegal to

use a person’s privacy as entertainment without consent. It is also argued here that a clear

conceptualization of Privacy Right will allow for the establishment of legitimate limits in

State regulation of the family. The worth of considering pri vacy as opposed t o an object of

curiosity, contempt and entertainment is that a clear conceptualization can be drawn

allowing an unconditioned protection of privacy, stripped of all other philosophical,

political and even social considerations.

1. Introduction

The law does not allow States to undertake any kind of in quiry into the privacy of families. This

statement gi ves rise to several questions such as: how can the wide range of legitimate requirements

needed to assure the vigorous debate of ideas democratic societies require be compatible with Privacy

Right?; or, also, how can the permanent intrusions i mposed by s ecurity regulations and by social health

planning or, for that matter, the necessary limits to privacy required by t he investigation of crimes be

compatible with Privacy Right?

2. What is the difficulty with privacy?

Many aspects of life require constant attention from legal theory. However, as technology offers ever new

possibilities of intrusion and surveillance into people’s privacy, this right has become an increasingly

threatened good, to an extent never thought of previously. Men and women of our time live in a

“transparent” world, in a seamless space where the traditional concepts of time and space have been

dissolved by technology.