The "right to privacy" may mean different things to different people and in different contexts.
In one sense, it is the right not to be intruded upon in the privacy of one's home. This includes both the right not to be observed, and the right not to be bothered with unwanted "visitors," such as door-to-door and telephone salespeople. "A man's home is his castle." But computers are seldom used to invade the sanctuary of people's homes, so we will not discuss this further.
Warren and Brandeis (1890) argued that the common law recognized a kind of privacy right, namely a "right to be let alone," which they believed to be grounded on the principle of "an inviolate personality." By this, they meant a right to reserve one's thoughts and feelings from expression, or, if one chose to express them, to limit that expression to particular individuals or groups, such as one's close friends, family, or associates. For example, to publish someone's personal letters in the newspaper, or to publish a description of an unfinished work of art, or a catalog of a private collection of jewels or curiosities, without permission, would ordinarily be a violation of privacy understood in this sense. Such descriptions and catalogs may "show the bent and turn of the mind, the feelings and taste of the artist" or collector. They argued that this right extended beyond written and artistic expressions to "personal appearance, sayings, acts, and to personal relation[s], domestic or otherwise," and in general to "the facts relating to [one's] private life, which he has seen fit to keep private." A man may choose to conduct himself privately in a way which is quite harmless, but which, if it were publicly known, would subject him to ridicule, sarcasm, financial loss, ruin, or the embitterment of life. However, if privacy is a right to be protected, it does not depend on these possible evils; its justification is in the intrinsic dignity due to human nature.
Privacy violations may be more or less severe depending on the media used to publicize the information. Warren and Brandeis were primarily concerned about printed gossip which was, even in those days, appearing in the newspapers. They did not consider oral gossip to be such a serious matter, partly because it could not spread so far by word of mouth, would not ordinarily reach the ears of strangers, and partly because the person being gossiped about normally would not have the "pain and mortification" of knowing about it, unless it attacked his reputation. In one respect, computer data about individuals is like oral gossip: the person that the data is about does not ordinarily know about the data. Most of us have never seen our credit reports, medical records, or FBI files. In other respects, it is more like gossip printed in the newspaper: it is widely circulated, and may be seen by strangers. In yet another way, some computer data is unlike both oral and printed gossip: it is often not seen by human beings at all, strangers or otherwise. For example, direct mail advertisements are printed and addressed by computers from machine-readable files; it is extremely unlikely that any person has read the files on which these mailings are based. Considering that much of the "private" data which is collected about individuals is processed entirely by machines, we can conclude that, for these particular databases at least, computer data which touches one's reputation (e.g., credit worthiness or insurability) is the greatest cause for concern. However, the unauthorized revelation of thoughts and feelings may also be a matter of concern. It may seem that computer databases do not collect information about the thoughts and feelings about individuals, and they do not---directly. However, indirectly, a person's purchasing patterns, financial transactions, etc., say a great deal about the ways she thinks and feels. Even now, computer "data mining" programs are probably at work in scores of information bureaus trying to analyze these patterns.
More recent writers, who are concerned specifically with computer-related invasion of privacy, tend to define privacy as the right of individuals to control information about themselves (Johnson 1985, Kling 1996b). This right would include, for example, the right to limit access to their medical records, and the right to know about and to correct their credit reports. Individuals could want to control information about themselves because it is damaging (e.g., they have committed crimes), because it is irrelevant to a decision (an employer does not need to know your spouse's occupation in order to hire you), or because it is inaccurate. Apart from the consequences of use of information, many people want to control it because they feel that the facts of their lives are, as it were, their property. "People often feel wronged when the information about them is revealed even though the information is not damaging and the only consequence is that others now know what they did not know before." (Johnson 1985)
If I have a right to control the information about myself, it is obvious that that right is not unlimited. For example, if I have been convicted of a violent crime, my neighbors and potential associates have a right to know about it; it is, and must be, a matter of public record. If people were routinely able to control their credit records to the extent of hiding the fact that they failed to repay a loan, the whole system of buying on credit would quickly come to an end. Moreover, some information is more sensitive than other information and has more need to be controlled. What I say confidentially to my lawyer, to my doctor, or in the confessional is very private and deserves the highest level of protection. While my exact salary and bank balance is a secret that I treasure, a general idea can be formed of my financial situation merely by looking at the house I live in and the cars I drive. The number of my children and my tastes in literature and music are less closely guarded secrets, not really guarded at all, but it would be a shock to find an article about them in the newspaper or on the World-Wide Web. Finally, it would be ridiculous for anyone to have to ask my permission to tell another person about my general appearance, my profession, or where I live. There are degrees of privacy; some information is more confidential than other information.
If you haven't done anything wrong, do you have nothing to worry about? Well, there is certainly inaccuracy to be worried about. But even when there is no wrongdoing to hide and no inaccuracy, there is still the indignity of privacy intrusion. Everybody knows what married couples do in bed, and everybody knows what people do on the toilet, and everyone knows there is nothing wrong with these activities. Still, no human being wants to be observed or recorded doing them. (Dogs, on the other hand, don't care who's watching.) The respect due to human nature is violated by intrusions of this kind. Likewise, our personal thoughts and feelings, unless and to the extent that we choose to reveal them, deserve protection from unwanted snooping, electronic or otherwise.