English Discourse Site Menu:

An Annotated Bibliography
Stefani Warmack
Academic affiliation: Oklahoma State University
©Read the copyright notice at the bottom of this page
before reproducing this essay/webpage on paper,
or electronically, or in any other form.

Alfino, Mark and G. Randolf Mayes. Reconstructing the Right to Privacy. Social Theory and Practice 29.1 (2003): 1-18. After the attack on September 11, 2001 on the United States, the whole perspective of life changed in every person's mind in some way. Defining privacy as a fundamental moral right that each person is entitled to have is the main purpose after 9-11. Most philosophers refute the fundamental, moral, and right definitions because they do not see privacy as a right at all. Philosophers like to view each violation of privacy as a special exception instead of making it part of moral issues. An important argument to this belief is if privacy is considered a fundamental moral right then the idea, each individual has the right to control the availability of his or her personal information. This is one possibility in which privacy is not viewed this way. This article would benefit anyone who is curious about what is going on that they do not know about and any information about privacy in general.

Etzioni, Amitai. The Limits of Privacy. New York: Basic, 1999. Although the arguments from the past and present have changed to incorporate the changes in society, the same idea of privacy being considered a privilege. However, a mainstream argument that does not include privacy as a privilege is seeing privacy as mix between personal rights and social responsibilities, both being equal. Another argument of mainly the present is the invasion of privacy violates in some ways the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. The basic idea is the invasion of privacy could and will include the invasion of search and seizure. The Fourth Amendment states that one cannot search and seize without a search warrant. Invasion of privacy is searching and at times seizing without a warrant which people conclude is the same thing. This article would also be informative for a person wanting to know about what the main issues are in America now, what the government is doing, and some ideas about what others are thinking and maybe gain some support for their opinion.

Lusky, Louis. Invasion of Privacy: A Clarification of Concepts. Columbia Law Review 92.2 (1972): 192-209. The main problems with privacy is the definition of privacy, what is and is not considered privacy, and the invasion of privacy and the subjects that relate as well. The clarification of privacy and how each problem (each invasion of privacy problem) can be solved with a solution along with rationality. To first assume, convict, or suspect someone of invasion of privacy, the complete and detailed definition has to be stated and then the actions may follow. Without first defining privacy, there would be no case because each person's idea of privacy is different and no one idea is correct. This article provides a strong foundation to anyone who is being introduced to the issue of privacy for the first time.

McCloskey, H.J. The Political Ideal of Privacy. The Philosophical Quarterly 21.85 (1971): 303-14. A society that respects privacy is highly looked upon and a society that does not respect privacy is (with invasions and violations of privacy) not highly looked. In Western culture, privacy is a value and ideal in the society however, has been overridden due to emergencies. That does not justify the fact the privacy was or has been invaded, it just allows a better understanding of why it happened and it was for the good of the person or people involved. The privacy that is ideal for every person would only be able to exist in a utilitarian society, however, it is beneficial to adopt a broader view and understanding of privacy to accept the new view of privacy and rather than to restrain the freedom each person enjoys. This article gives a political view to the issue of privacy and is helpful to gain a perspective from every aspect involved with the issue. It has many citations and uses examples from other countries, not just the United States.

Reiman, Jeffery H. “Privacy, Intimacy, and Personhood. Philosophy & Public Affairs 6.1 (1976): 26-44. One big issue about what is and is not considered in the privacy category is the thoughts of a person. That cannot really be determined because yes, they are someones thoughts but it is very hard to own something that intangible. However, in order for someones thoughts to remain private, one has to learn how to control those thoughts and to whom those thoughts are capable of being expressed. Privacy, then, is considered to be a right to every single person no matter the state of mind, who they are, or where they are now. Privacy also protects the persons right and interest in developing into, living, and staying a person. This article states ideas from a few authors and his opinion to those ideas while having those and others as citations. This article is easy to read in addition, seems to have been written by a younger adult. This gives the feeling of a better relay of his ideas to the reader.

Rosen, Jeffery. Why Privacy Matters. The Wilson Quarterly 24.4 (2000): 32-8. Clear changes in political, personal, and social costs are linked to the changes in and of privacy. The political cost is democracy allows people to debate without giving up all of a persons secrets and privacy also allows this. The personal costs are the protection of independence and the formation of intimate relationships of each individual. To fix the personal costs, one needs to become more creative in forming and keeping those intimate relationships so they will last. Lastly, social costs included the increase in surveillance in public, which will affect the way individuals will eventually over act and over respond to the risks of exposure in public. This article is more up-to-date in explaining the issue of privacy by including specific examples of life in the present time, such as instances with the internet, celebrities, and the government. It is also very easy to read and very informational with many citations.

Scott, Gini Graham. Mind Your Own Business: The Battle for Personal Privacy. New York: Plenum Publishing Corporation, 1995. At the present time, individuals have been given more recognition because privacy has become so much more important. Privacy is pertinent for social roles that are constructed and it gives individuals a sense of power in the world. The privacy of each person is being invaded and slowly fading away. This in turn, is making more individuals fight back to win back their right to privacy. The reason more individuals are fighting back is that so much emotional baggage is riding on privacy that when someone invades that privacy, a strong reaction is the response. Along with the emotional baggage on privacy, more aspects of every day life are being invaded. This article is well researched by having many citations.

Thomson, Judith Jarvis. The Right to Privacy. Philosophy & Public Affairs 4 (1975): 295-314. The idea of privacy is unclear in every mind and some people tend to think that every violation of a right is a violation of the right of privacy. Is this true? In order to answer this question, a clear concept of privacy has to be made. People also tend to be more protective of themselves than their possessions, this one factor blurs the idea of privacy. Many examples are given to illustrate this idea and distinguish between personal and possession privacies. In addition, what is and is not an invasion or violation of privacy. The many examples are important because they give specific instances when and when are not violations of privacy. This is beneficial to anyone who would like a better understanding of privacy. In addition, it is beneficial to anyone who needs more support for their opinion of privacy for any reason. There are not very many citations, only a few, but this article has been cited many times by other authors. This article is very easy to read and understand and is not directed toward any certain group of people.

Warren, Samuel and Louis D. Brandeis. The Right to Privacy. Harvard Law Review 193.4 (1890). Each individual has a right to life which includes full protection in person as well a property. It seems like an easy definition for privacy but throughout the years, the definition has changed many times, while making the definition more complex and detailed. Privacy has now been changed to incorporate the right to enjoy life, which includes the right to be left alone. Property has been changed as well to include the material items as well as the non-material items as forms of possession. In order for a person to receive a necessary added protection of privacy, legislation would have to be passed and the right of privacy is not one of the top priorities. This article is cited many times in many different articles even though it was written over a hundred years ago. It is also well researched while still holding true and valuable to the present time.

Zittrain, Jonathan. What the Publisher Can Teach the Patient: Intellectual Property and Privacy in an Era of Trusted Privication. Stanford Law Review 4.8 (2000): 1-70. There is a difference between those who want to protect intellectual property and those who want to protect privacy. Those who want to protect the intellectual property is the music industry and anyone else who is involved with this issue due to revenue. Those who want to protect privacy are those whose privacy was invaded in a way and they want to stop anything like that happening again and to someone else. However, this article is not only about the music industry and a few people, it is also about the health industry and the patient-doctor confidentiality that has been broken and many other topics. This article is seventy pages long which is good because it has a lot of information that covers a wide range of topics. This article has many citations and is written by an author who has many credentials.

Search English Discourse
WWW English Discourse

Copyright notice: this page will hereafter be referred to as the essay/webpage. All rights to the essay/webpage are held by its author. You may hyperlink to the essay/webpage electronically and without notifying either English Discourseóthe e-journal or the author of the essay/webpage, but hyperlinks are allowed only for non-commercial and educational use. The essay/webpage may not otherwise be reproduced in hard-copy, electronically, or any other form, unless the written permission of its author is obtained prior to such reproductions. If you do link to the essay/webpage, part of the text in the hyperlink must contain the words "English Discourseóthe e-journal".

You may quote from the essay/webpage, but only if the author and English Discourseóthe e-journal are unmistakably cited in parenthetical citations and works cited page, endnotes, footnotes, bibliography page, or references page citations.

You may not otherwise copy or transmit the contents of the essay/webpage either electronically or in hard copies. You may not alter the content of the essay/webpage in any manner. If you are interested in using the contents of the essay/webpage in any manner except as described above, please contact "webmaster" at "englishdiscourse.org" for information on publishing rights, and the editor will arrange contact between your organization and the author of the essay/webpage. English Discourseóthe e-journal, suggests that such emails should include a subject heading that reads "editorial contact," or "publishing rights." English Discourseóthe e-journal will not act as an agent or accept any fees. The essay/webpage is the intellectual property of its author, who retains sole rights. The author has merely granted permission for English Discourseóthe e-journal to publish the essay/webpage.