Right to Privacy and the Problem of Its Implementation in the Digital Age

Legal Development and Philosophical Justification

Right to privacy (privacy) is a relatively young legal concept that gained fundamental formulation in the 20th century. Although its roots date back to the philosophical works of John Locke and Immanuel Kant, it was formally established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948, Article 12) and the European Convention on Human Rights (1950, Article 8). Today, it is a complex, multi-level structure, including the inviolability of the home and personal correspondence, protection of personal data, the right to one's own image, and the "right to be left alone" (the right to be let alone).

Interesting fact: One of the first legal concepts of privacy was formulated in the article "Right to Privacy" by American lawyers Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren in 1890. They responded to the emergence of portable cameras, allowing journalists to intrude into personal space without ceremony. Paradoxically, technological progress has become a catalyst for the realization of the right that the same progress constantly threatens today.

Digital Redefinition of Privacy

The Internet and Big Data have radically transformed the very essence of privacy. If before it was understood as physical "seclusion from the eyes of others," today it is primarily informational self-determination — control over the collection, storage, use, and dissemination of personal data.

We voluntarily-compulsorily exchange privacy for convenience, security, or free services. Every like, search query, route trip forms our "digital twin" — a profile that often knows more about us than we do ourselves, and is used for predictive analysis, micro-targeting advertising, and even decision-making (credit scoring, insurance).

Example: In 2012, the American retail chain Target, analyzing the purchases of a customer (vitamins, unscented lotions), predicted her pregnancy with high accuracy and sent corresponding coupons, which caused a shock to her father, who did not yet know about the situation. The case became a classic illustration of how algorithms violate privacy, surpassing personal disclosure.

Global Legal Models: From the EU to China

There are three main approaches to regulating privacy:

European model (rigid regulation regime): Based on the concept of an inalienable fundamental right. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, 2018) established strict requirements for data collection (the principle of "informed consent"), their minimum sufficiency, the right to correction, transfer, and erasure of data. Fines for violations reach 4% of the company's global turnover.

American model (industry regulation regime): Privacy is protected fragmentarily, through laws for specific sectors (HIPAA for health care, COPPA for child protection). The basis is self-regulation of business and contractual relations "provider-consumer". Priority is given to the freedom of commerce and innovation.

Chinese model (state-centered): The Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL, 2021) formally contains many principles of GDPR. However, privacy here is understood not as an autonomous right of the individual, but as an element of cyber sovereignty and social stability. The state retains broad access to data for social management and control purposes.

Key Implementation Issues

Weakness of "informed consent": Long, complexly written user agreements are in fact a fiction of choice. The user has no real alternative if he wants to use the service.

Global nature of data and jurisdictional conflicts: The data of a EU citizen may be stored on servers in the US and processed by a company from Singapore. Whose laws should apply? The conflict between the European GDPR and the American Cloud Act (allowing US authorities to request data from IT companies regardless of their location of storage) is a vivid example of legal uncertainty.

Technological lead: Legislation always lags behind technology. Neural networks generating deepfake content, real-time facial recognition systems, the Internet of Things — all these technologies create new threats to privacy that legal systems are not prepared for.

Interesting fact: In 2020, researchers showed that with the help of data from a commercial "smart" electricity meter, it is possible to accurately determine which television content is being watched in a particular home at a given moment by analyzing only electricity consumption. This demonstrates how even the most seemingly neutral data can reveal intimate details of life.

Future: Between Total Control and Technological Protection

Scenarios of development vary from dystopian total surveillance (social rating, predictive police) to the emergence of new, stronger tools for protection. The latter include:

Privacy by Design: Embedding privacy protection at the level of IT system architecture.

Decentralized technologies: Blockchain and self-governing digital identifiers (SSI), which can return control over data to users.

Differential privacy: A mathematical method that allows collecting aggregated data about groups without revealing information about individual individuals (used, for example, by Apple and the U.S. Census Bureau).

Conclusion: Privacy as a Public Good

The implementation of the right to privacy has ceased to be just a personal matter for each individual. In conditions where manipulation of behavior through micro-targeting threatens democratic processes, and data leaks undermine trust in the digital economy, privacy becomes a collective, public good. Its protection is not just compliance with formal norms, but a continuous process of seeking a balance between security, innovation, and human dignity. The future of this right depends on the ability of society to develop ethical technological standards and global legal compromises that recognize privacy as an inalienable condition for the free development of the individual in the digital world.
© elibrary.org.uk

Permanent link to this publication: