The Privacy Pioneers

Kant, Hegel, Mill, Warren and Brandeis

By Mike Yeagley:  Privacy is not just about secrecy; it is an essential and powerful principle. It plays a crucial role in preserving liberty, autonomy, and dignity. Privacy empowers individuals to resist manipulation and interference from commercial and governmental surveillance, ensuring they are not reduced to mere data points. It stands as an unwavering fortress of self-determination, self-respect, and dignity.

Historical thinkers such as Hegel, Mill, Kant, Brandeis, and Warren provide fundamental insights that underscore the importance of privacy today. Hegel asserts that mutual recognition is vital for personal identity, establishing that privacy is essential for authentic self-expression. Mill argues that privacy is indispensable for individual development, allowing people to thrive free from societal constraints. Kant's insistence on treating individuals as ends in themselves firmly supports the notion that privacy is a fundamental moral right rooted in human dignity. Furthermore, in their groundbreaking essay “The Right to Privacy,” Brandeis and Warren anticipated the intrusive capabilities of technology. They laid the legal groundwork for privacy that is essential today.

I aim to link these historical views on privacy with the contemporary threats to freedom and dignity.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

Immanuel Kant’s theory of human dignity and his means-to-an-end principle is the cornerstone of his moral philosophy. In his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), Kant argues that individuals must always be treated as ends and never merely as means to an end.  Unlike objects with a price or utility, humans have intrinsic value—what Kant calls “dignity.” This value is not contingent on external circumstances, such as achievements or utility to others, but is grounded in a person’s rational nature and moral autonomy.

• Kant’s means-to-an-end principle is highly relevant to privacy debates in the digital age. When corporations or governments collect and use personal data without meaningful consent, individuals are reduced to mere means for profit or surveillance. This violates Kantian ethics because it disregards the autonomy of the person whose data is being used.

• Data autonomy aligns with Kant’s emphasis on respecting individuals as ends in themselves. For example, when individuals are given control over their data and the ability to decide how it is shared, their autonomy and dignity are honored.

• Mass surveillance and manipulative practices (e.g., targeted advertising using behavioral data) treat individuals as mere means to corporate or political ends, undermining personal autonomy.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831)

Hegel’s philosophy delivers a robust framework for understanding personal identity, self-expression, self-actualization, and privacy, even though these terms were not explicitly defined in his era. His emphasis on recognition and freedom as integral components of personal development offers critical insights into modern interpretations of privacy.

Hegel argues that mutual recognition is essential for forming personal identity. He posits that self-actualization and individuality depend on being recognized by others while maintaining control over how one’s identity is presented. In contemporary terms, privacy is crucial for managing the interactions that allow individuals to establish and maintain their identities. Without privacy, individuals face unjust scrutiny that can obstruct personal growth and freedom of expression.

• Personal Identity and Recognition: In Phenomenology of Spirit (1807), Hegel establishes that personal identity develops through recognition. The Master-Slave Dialectic illustrates that self-consciousness arises from interactions with others—individuals become aware of their own identity when acknowledged by another self-conscious being. Therefore, identity is inherently relational, demanding mutual acknowledgment.

• Privacy and Identity:  Privacy is fundamental in this process because it allows individuals to curate their self-presentation and engage in authentic self-expression. Individuals cannot effectively shape how others perceive them without controlling the information shared about them. This understanding resonates with current concerns around data ownership and identity management in digital environments.

• Self-Expression and Autonomy: For Hegel, achieving freedom necessitates expressing inner thoughts and desires in the external world. Consequently, self-expression is vital to becoming a fully realized individual. Self-actualization occurs when individuals align their inner intentions with their external actions, leading to personal fulfillment and contributing to societal progress.

• Self-Actualization and the Role of Society: Hegel firmly argues that self-actualization cannot be achieved in isolation but must occur through participation in social and political institutions. In Philosophy of Right (1821), he contends that true freedom is realized within the state, where individuals can pursue personal goals that align with the collective will. Societal structures must, therefore, respect individual autonomy and dignity to foster genuine self-actualization.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

John Stuart Mill’s philosophy provides an essential framework for understanding modern privacy, mainly through his concepts of individual liberty, autonomy, and freedom from interference. Privacy is not a luxury but vital for personal and societal well-being. It empowers individuals to manage their identities, express themselves freely, and control their personal information. Although Mill did not address privacy explicitly, many of his principles—especially those articulated in *On Liberty* (1859)—are strikingly relevant to today’s urgent concerns about data privacy, surveillance, and personal autonomy.

• The Harm Principle and Privacy:  Mill's harm principle unequivocally asserts that the only legitimate reason for restricting an individual's freedom is to prevent harm to others. This principle makes it clear that unless an individual’s actions cause harm, they must enjoy the freedom to act and maintain control over their personal affairs. In the realm of privacy, this principle mandates that governments and corporations must not interfere with or collect personal data unless such actions are necessary for preventing actual harm (for example, crime prevention or public safety). This stance robustly defends against mass surveillance, which unjustly monitors individuals without cause. According to Mill’s philosophy, indiscriminate surveillance is unjustifiable, violating personal freedom without any substantiated need for harm prevention.

• Autonomy and Control over Personal Information: Mill undeniably emphasizes the paramount importance of individual freedom, which includes the ability to make independent decisions free from coercion or manipulation. Personal autonomy requires individuals to retain control over how they present themselves and manage their information. In today's context, data privacy laws, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), embody this principle by empowering individuals with control over their data. These laws require explicit consent before any personal information is collected or shared. Mill’s focus on autonomy aligns with privacy laws that enforce user consent and grant individuals the right to access, correct, or delete their data. Individuals should establish clear boundaries between the various aspects of their lives—work, social, and personal.

• Liberty vs. Algorithmic Influence:  Mill firmly contended that freedom from external interference is essential for individuals to develop their ideas and identities. Yet today, algorithm-driven platforms continuously manipulate people's thoughts and behaviors by curating the information they encounter, often for commercial or political purposes. This manipulation directly undermines the autonomy Mill championed and must be challenged.

• Freedom of Expression and the Right to Privacy:  Mill was a staunch advocate for freedom of thought and speech, recognizing that open dialogue is critical for personal growth and societal advancement. Equally significant is the principle of personal discretion; individuals possess the undeniable right to decide what to disclose and to whom. Privacy is indispensable in safeguarding this freedom of expression, as it enables individuals to explore ideas and beliefs without fear of judgment or retaliation. Constant surveillance severely compromises the ability to express oneself freely. This is particularly relevant in discussions about self-censorship arising from online monitoring or data tracking, where individuals hesitate to engage in certain activities or voice controversial opinions when they know they are being watched.

• The Tyranny of the Majority and Data Privacy:  Mill’s warning about the "tyranny of the majority" is exceptionally relevant today, highlighting how societal norms can suppress individuality. This phenomenon is particularly pronounced in today’s social media climate, where conformity to dominant opinions often exerts immense pressure. Privacy is crucial for individuals to maintain their uniqueness, allowing them to explore ideas and behaviors without fearing public scrutiny. Mill’s insights underscore the importance of privacy in online environments, where individuals are susceptible to groupthink, social pressure, and public shaming. Robust privacy protections are essential to create spaces where people feel empowered to voice alternative perspectives and explore personal interests without fear.

Samuel D. Warren (1852–1910) and Louis D. Brandeis (1856–1941)

Warren and Brandeis met at Harvard Law School, where their friendship blossomed into a powerful partnership as they co-founded Warren & Brandeis. Warren's deep concern over intrusive media coverage of his family's private life, including incessant gossip about their social events and his wedding, drove them to action. The advent of photography and tabloid journalism aggressively encroached on personal boundaries, and existing laws were woefully inadequate to address these invasions. To safeguard the sanctity of private life, Warren approached Brandeis to devise a groundbreaking legal framework to protect individuals from unwanted public scrutiny.

Brandeis seized this opportunity to apply legal reasoning to pressing social issues, recognizing the chance to expand common law principles into vital new territories. Together, they boldly articulated the concept of a "right to be let alone," redirecting the focus of the law from traditional concerns like property and contracts to the significant mental and emotional harm inflicted by privacy violations.

In 1890, they published "The Right to Privacy," a landmark work that demanded recognition of privacy as a fundamental legal right—the "right to be let alone." They tackled the urgent challenges posed by technological advancements, such as photography and sensational journalism, which threatened to obliterate personal boundaries. Their essay forcefully emphasized the emotional and mental devastation caused by unauthorized exposure, insisting on a broader legal recognition of individual dignity and autonomy transcending mere property-based protections.

• Privacy as an Extension of Common Law:  Warren and Brandeis believed that while property and contract laws protected tangible assets, protections needed to extend to intangible aspects, such as personal thoughts, emotions, and intimate moments. They argued that privacy should protect individuals from the mental harm caused by the press or others' unwanted exposure to personal matters.

• Public vs. Private Life:  The essay emphasized distinguishing between private life, which individuals should have the right to shield, and public matters, which could be freely discussed. This distinction was meant to limit privacy protections from interfering with public interests, such as the right to report on political figures or matters of public concern.

• Inviolability of Personality: One of the central themes in the essay was that privacy is necessary to protect the “inviolate personality”—the inner aspects of human life that should remain free from intrusion. This conceptualization laid the groundwork for the legal protection of personal dignity and autonomy in later privacy law developments.

• Legal Remedies for Privacy Violations:  Warren and Brandeis proposed that privacy violations should be treated as a tort, allowing individuals to seek damages for emotional harm even when no tangible loss was involved. They also suggested injunctions—court orders preventing future invasions of privacy—especially for cases involving the misuse of personal information or photographs.

Conclusion

The philosophical foundations of privacy laid out by thinkers like Kant, Hegel, Mill, Warren, and Brandeis remain relevant today, particularly amid widespread digital surveillance and data collection. Kant emphasizes autonomy and the imperative of treating individuals as ends in themselves, underscoring the necessity for people to have control over their data and rejecting the reduction of individuals to mere data points for profit or power.

Hegel’s notion of identity formation through mutual recognition further reinforces that privacy is crucial for authentic self-expression, enabling individuals to develop their identities without external interference. Mill’s passionate defense of personal liberty, free from societal constraints, aligns seamlessly with the contemporary demand for privacy as a vital space for free thought and self-development, especially in a digital landscape rife with online tracking and behavioral profiling.

Moreover, Warren and Brandeis's pioneering work asserting a “right to privacy” as fundamental to mental and emotional well-being highlights that privacy is essential for upholding human dignity and protecting individuals from manipulation.

In light of these philosophical insights, privacy is not merely a personal concern; it is essential to liberty and dignity in our society. As we navigate an increasingly interconnected world, we must advocate for robust privacy protections that safeguard individual autonomy and foster an environment where every person can thrive free from unwarranted intrusion. Protecting privacy is, ultimately, a call to preserve our fundamental rights and freedoms.  Privacy is our fortress.

My next paper will address Fourth Amendment issues, focusing on Carpenter v. US and FISA (702).