Generative Native World: The Right to be Let Alone
The Right to Privacy
Louis D. Brandeis, before his tenure as a Supreme Court Justice, made a significant contribution to the legal discourse on privacy with his co-authored Harvard Law Review article titled "The Right to Privacy," published in 1890 alongside Samuel D. Warren.
This seminal work emerged from their concerns over the intrusions of the press and the burgeoning capabilities of photographic technology, positing the "right to be let alone" as a foundational principle. Brandeis argued that this right was inherent to individual freedom and autonomy, reflecting a deep understanding of the importance of privacy to human dignity. An important line from their article,
“The intensity and complexity of life, attendant upon advancing civilization, have rendered necessary some retreat from the world, and man, under the refining influence of culture, has become more sensitive to publicity, so that solitude and privacy have become more essential to the individual; but modern enterprise and invention have, through invasions upon his privacy, subjected him to mental pain and distress, far greater than could be inflicted by mere bodily injury.”
highlights the increasing relevance of privacy as society advances. This perspective laid the groundwork for future legal interpretations of privacy and has continued to influence discussions on the balance between public interest and personal privacy in the age of digital technology and beyond. Brandeis' advocacy for privacy as a right essential to democracy and individual liberty remains a cornerstone in the legal understanding and protection of privacy today.
Privacy in a Generative Native World
In today’s generative native world, Brandeis's advocacy for the "right to be let alone" takes on renewed urgency and significance. The proliferation of digital technologies such as deepfakes and the ease with which personal information can be collected, analyzed, disseminated, and identities recreated, highlights the importance of protecting individual privacy. Brandeis's early warnings remind us that as our capabilities to intrude upon personal privacy grow more sophisticated, so too must our commitment to preserving the sanctity of personal space and autonomy.
References
Further read
From Infinite Improbability to Generative AI: Navigating Imagination in Fiction and Technology
Human vs. AI in Reinforcement Learning through Human Feedback
Generative AI for Law: The Agile Legal Business Model for Law Firms
Generative AI for Law: From Harvard Law School to the Modern JD
Unjust Law is Itself a Species of Violence: Oversight vs. Regulating AI
Generative AI for Law: Technological Competence of a Judge & Prosecutor
Law is Not Logic: The Exponential Dilemma in Generative AI Governance
Generative AI & Law: I Am an American Day in Central Park, 1944
Generative AI & Law: Title 35 in 2024++ with Non-human Inventors
Generative AI & Law: Similarity Between AI and Mice as a Means to Invent
Generative AI & Law: The Evolving Role of Judges in the Federal Judiciary in the Age of AI
Embedding Cultural Value of a Society into Large Language Models (LLMs)
Lessons in Leadership: The Fall of the Roman Republic and the Rise of Julius Caesar