Privacy Rights, and Why Negative Control is Not a Dead End: A Reply to Munch and Lundgren

Jakob Thrane Mainz, Rasmus Uhrenfeldt

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftKommentar/debatForskningpeer review

1 Citationer (Scopus)

Abstract

Lauritz Munch and Björn Lundgren have recently replied to a paper published by us in this journal. In our original paper, we defended a novel version of the so-called ‘control theory’ of the moral right to privacy. We argued that control theorists should define ‘control’ as what we coined ‘Negative Control’. Munch and Lundgren have recently provided a range of interesting and challenging objections to our view. Independently of each other, they give almost identical counterexamples to our definition of Negative Control. In this comment, we show that while the counterexamples are genuine counterexamples, they do not force us to abandon the idea of Negative Control. Furthermore, we reply to two additional objections raised by Lundgren. One of these replies involves giving a new account of what the relation is between the concept of privacy and the right to privacy.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftRes Publica
Vol/bind28
Sider (fra-til)391-400
ISSN1356-4765
DOI
StatusUdgivet - jun. 2022

Emneord

  • Privatliv
  • Retten til privatliv

Fingeraftryk

Dyk ned i forskningsemnerne om 'Privacy Rights, and Why Negative Control is Not a Dead End: A Reply to Munch and Lundgren'. Sammen danner de et unikt fingeraftryk.

Citationsformater