Abstract
Abstract
This article concerns two interrelated, persistent problems for privacy law. The first is the failure of academic scholarship to get adequately to grips with the meaning of privacy. The second is the apparent inability of the English judiciary to resolve the common law lacuna in respect of intrusion-type privacy violations. The two problems are related in that the former is a significant contributor to the latter. Mainstream scholarship has long insisted on pursuing the One True Meaning of privacy, thereby overlooking valid alternative conceptualisations and creating a melange of theories that provides little assistance to judges. However, by adopting a novel, triangulation-based approach to understanding privacy of the sort proposed herein, it is possible to locate points of consensus between these rival theories in respect of particular privacy-violating activities. This consensus can provide the certainty common law judges require for the elaboration of further doctrine in this field.
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. The Limits Access of Medical Records in Indonesia and a Broader Propose to Support Patients in Malpractice Claims;Journal of Law and Sustainable Development;2023-12-22
2. VOYEURISM: CRIMINAL AND CRIMINOLOGICAL ASPECTS;Scientific Notes of V. I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University. Juridical science;2022-12-12
3. Criteria to appraise top executives for ambidextrous leadership;Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance;2022-05-13
4. Legal Bubbles;Encyclopedia of Law and Economics;2022
5. On legal bubbles: some thoughts on legal shockwaves at the core of the digital economy;Journal of Institutional Economics;2021-07-05