The point of making such a typology is that it shows the main dimensions that you can look at a certain concept, in this case, the concept of a topology. But also it shows the relationships between the different classes. So that you would expect people who like typologies to make them, and people who dislike them to deconstruct them. You would also expect people who like typologies not to cooperate too often with people who dislike typologies. Because they have very different approaches to what they do. Yeah. So when you apply that to privacy, we looked at what are the main dimensions along which you can structure types of privacy. The first and main dimension I think is the zones of social interaction that people have. So privacy is important in many aspects of life. Partly, it relates very much to you, yourself, and no one else. So in the solitude of your bedroom, no one is there. That's a certain type of privacy you enjoy based on you, yourself absent from all interaction. Then, you have an intimate zone where you engage with people very close to you. Usually, that will be your family or very close friends with whom you have intimate life. Then, you have a wider circle of social interactions. Still, it's not really public, but that is the circle of classmates, friends, colleagues, all the different people you engage with in different social settings, but without them, what you do there and what you tell them being public, which also includes for instance, your relation to your physician, your relation to your priest, or to other of these professionals that you go to and share sensitive data with. You would also expect them to keep secret what you're telling them. That's the whole point. Sometimes they are even obliged on basis of their profession. Definitely. Then, you have the fourth really public zone where you interact with an indefinite number of people. So typically walking on the street. But also there, you might expect some level of privacy. So that's the first dimension from the really private to the really public. The second dimension, then, is the dimension of freedoms. So classically, Isaiah Berlin's distinction between freedom from and freedom to. So the "freedom from" is what typically Warren and Brenda say being left alone or being let alone. So there are no photographs being made and put in the- Yeah, meaning you shield yourself off from the others. But freedom also has a positive connection in the sense of you have the freedom to develop yourself. Much of the literature on privacy, the theoretical literature, also emphasizes that point of self-development. So that's another major dimension. Then, we have a third dimension, which is a bit less visible in graphic, but equally important, which has a cross-cutting dimension because it overlaps with these two. From, on the one hand, access control, that is where you have the power to regulate the boundaries. You decide who you let in and who you leave out. To what, at the other end, where you don't really control what other people get to see of you, but you rely on them keeping secret or private whatever it is that they're seeing or you're sharing with them. Yeah, where typically it would be in a train, coach, or things like that that people could, well, it's almost in your space, so to speak, but nevertheless, it's a very public space also. Yeah. If you have a phone conversation on a train, people can hear it. But you wouldn't expect them then to really on the Internet say, "Now, this person," and you take a picture of them, put it online, "said this and this." So that's where you rely on people's discretion in order not to pry into it. That also means that you don't ask too many indiscreet questions. For instance, so much of privacy also relies on social norms where other people protect your privacy rather than that you can technically shield it off. So that's the third dimension. Then, within these dimensions, we position the various types of privacy that we encountered in the constitutions. So typically starting point is then the law? Yes. In the sense that the constitution should really say something about the house or say something about the body or say something about the spatial or communications correspondence like storage. So it's based on. The starting point was the law, but to classify these different types, we also looked at what the literature or academics scholars have previously said on the various types which includes sometimes new types which are not already crystallized in the law. Of course, you should also realize that we base ourselves on constitutional laws, and constitutions lag behind a little bit. They're not really forward-looking but they condense what is really considered protection worthy at a certain point in time. Yes. So we positioned eight types of privacy in there. Would you like me to go through them step by step? Yes. Yeah. In your slides, it is like the bodily one and totally on the order that you are allowed to think whatever or not to think whatever you want. Yes, it would be nice to have all these loose elements. Okay. Then, it makes most sense I think to go through them zone by zone. Also, because there you see the connections between them. Yes. So in the purely personal one, you have the privacy of your body that people are not allowed to touch you unless you really invite them or consent to being touched. Very topical in the "me too" discussion, I would guess. It also regulates particularly in the criminal law context to what extent the police can really search you, not only on your body, but also look inside your body which is considered more intrusive looking inside the body. So there you see the boundary of the skin is really important for your bodily privacy. That's more the freedom from, so you can really prevent people from touching you. But there is also the freedom to which is your mental privacy which is more the freedom to think whatever you want. Extremely important, particularly, in criminal law. We criminalize behavior. We don't criminalize bad thoughts. So privacy of the mind there is really considered important. Partly for practical reasons, it's very difficult to really know what you're thinking unless you're telling us. There's no screen on front of eyes so. Yet, but with mind-creating technologies, we can get into that debate later on. But so far, intellectual privacy is an important part, but it's rather underdeveloped in the law simply because there haven't been too many intrusions on it. So that is the personal zone. Then, in the intimate zone, and that one of the epitomical or the most classical cases of privacy, spatial privacy, particularly, the privacy of your home. Protected for a long time. Of course, you should realize that the home as we now know it is also a fairly recent invention in the sense that it developed perhaps only in the 18th century or so. Previously, you lived with all your servants, family, wider family, all your cattle in one big room. Well, if even your professional. The workplace was in there. Occupation was you live and your worked in the same spot almost. Yeah, only in the 19th century that the work get outsourced to a place outside of the home. Yeah, but that was because there was no energy availability in every house, so we had to go to where textiles could be made and things like that. So you needed power and hydro was too difficult at that moment to have power in every house. Yeah. But the saying, "My home is my castle." already dates back from a bit longer than that and already, in the 15th century, I think, the notion that the government couldn't simply enter someone's home was already quite developed then. But special privacy in the law is typically restricted to the home and not to other spaces. Sometimes through some other spaces but that's very limited, and certainly not to public spaces. That's one of the issues and one of the reasons why I do this project. Nowadays, you take a lot of your home with you, because the home is our also or at least the things you stored in your home, and what you left at home previously, you now take with you on your smartphone. So that's a very major challenge. I think for the law to get updated. Related to the spatial privacy is what, particularly, in the US is strongly developed, decisional privacy, which is the privacy to decide on intimate life matters. So with whom you want to live to share your life, whether you want to have children, whether you want to have an abortion, to be free from unreasonable constraints on your decision powers on how to shape your intimate life with people, which is also an important part of being able to develop yourself and to develop an identity. Of course. Of course. That is why the religious freedom that they are really very fond of so to speak is one of the consequences of course. It's the consequence of religious freedom. It's not the other way around. Yeah, but that's strongly connected. All sorts of mental privacy again. Then, in the third zone, the semi-private zone, where you have more interactions, but still not completely public, the typical type of privacy there is the communicational privacy so that you can communicate with people without fear of the government overhearing this. Which is also very ancient in the form of privacy of letters. So when you put your letter in an envelope, there are usually fairly strong safeguards against opening the envelope and reading the contents, and with new communication methods that has been transposed into privacy of telephone conversations and our privacy of e-mail. To more or lesser extent, we could also discuss that. But in principle still the contents of communication when it's clear that you want to have them secret and not write on a postcard where it can be read from the outside, that it's considered strongly protected. That also correlates to your freedom to associate with people. So to have groups that you want to share your private life with. Also, possibly more important similar to your private conversations with your psychiatrist, also groups like alcoholics anonymous, where you have really intimate settings, but with people you otherwise don't know, strangers. So it's not with your- Yeah, even trade unions and things like that. Also that. Freedom to associate is very important. It's another the right to associate with people and the right to have unions and demonstrate, but there's also a privacy side to that that if what you do there is not kept confidential that it might have a chilling effect on your freedom to associate with people. Yes, I agree. Then in the final, the public zone, that was a bit more difficult to find the prototypical types of the privacy. Yes, I can imagine. Particularly, because the law doesn't really protect privacy in public spaces very much, but one element that we really found in terms of shielding off is what we call proprietary privacy. So the privacy of your property. The property that you carry with you on the street cannot simply be opened and looked into. So if you have a handbag and the police would want to know what is inside, there are certain safeguards to that. More importantly, I think there is the positive freedom of behavioral of privacy, so the freedom to behave without inhibition. Yeah, whatever he wants. Whatever you want. Actually we have nice scene on the speed and on the phone and that's something which is very- Well, I like the Dutch traditional framing of privacy as the freedom to be yourself without inhibition. Yes. Very much. Of course, it's not that you can be completely yourself completely uninhibited because we don't want some people to walk around the street naked or do very antisocial things. Nobody was. Let's say in the 70s and 80s it was. More accepted but now the social norm is not really. No, we don't do that anymore. We don't accept it anymore. Of course, there are also limitations to these, but relatively speaking you should still be able on the street to be yourself which is one of the reasons why I'm concerned about facial recognition because now if I visit another city for example, I feel relatively anonymous. Of course I could be recognized but it will be purely coincidental. So I could go to pubs, I could go to parties, I could participate in demonstrations which I otherwise wouldn't do if I would feel that people would know that I would do such things. But if people could make pictures of me and facial recognition could easily pin my name to that, and then also put that online then my freedom to feel free in another city and anonymous would be really gone. Yes, that's- So behavioral privacy is one of the also a major challenge I think in privacy. Let's say from a legal point of view there's two areas which are let's say underdeveloped because the technological that's the let's say the CME spatial environment, and the one we were talking on the last one that we need to decide on the fact that in public I can be inhibited but if there is a lot of technology available to seek you out and to determine whether you were there or not and even years later because that's one of the other things. In the old days, it was very difficult to keep everything the images was too expensive to save them and whatever but now everything can be saved on a hard disk and put in the Cloud and whatever and then, seven years later you can even see, did he indeed go to Florence or did he indeed went to the demonstration in London this last weekend. So it could be done like that. Particularly also prospectively, if you don't know how the information that is being registered, how long that will be stored and who might have access to that, that might really have a inhibiting effect on your freedom. Yeah, that's where the chilling probably come from. So. Oh sorry. Well, there's one thing missing here which if you see the picture and what many people would now start wondering, informational privacy. Yes. So that is which we put and I think that is one of the nice things of the typology most of the previous classifications of privacy set. You have spatial privacy, communicational privacy, behavioral privacy and informational privacy. Justice categories. One has the other. But we present and I think that a good way to look at it, informational privacy as an overlay on all these other types of privacy because your bodily privacy, your communicational privacy, your behavioral privacy always have an informational component. It's about what people know and what data they gather about you. Yes. At the same time it's not only the information. It's also the the physical element, the feeling of, so even if someone burgles into your home and doesn't steal anything, the fact that someone walked in your home is felt as an intrusion. Yes, a heavy intrusion Regardless even if it was a blind burglar? Whatever. It still feels as an intrusion and that means that you cannot pin it down to informational privacy only. It's also this spatial privacy in this case. So that's one of the things that I learned from this typology, that privacy is always about information but always also not only about information. It's also about the interaction, it's also about being free, feeling free, having the capability to be free because that's also one of the things of course. Not I fully agree, when you talk about home thermostats for instance, like the ones that are now being flown in into the houses almost and everybody's putting it. That tells a lot about how your household works and when you're at home, when you're not at home, whether you are chilling or not chilling and things like that. So and even in some of these are even microphones in there which could be switched on and off on whatever, on whoever that decides it's not even my own decision. It's a decision of the platform. One very important thing with a lot of people don't realize is the way you have been working on the typology, it was also because he wanted to become knowledgeable so to speak on what the government is allowed to do in the form of the police or in criminal law. So it's these rights or these fundamental rights for classical Human Rights or whatever you want to call them. It's only in one dimension in the sense of it's against the government. A lot of Human Rights have been developed against big brother or the government. The thing at this moment is of course that it's no longer only the government that can do all these intrusions you have been talking about it can also be done. So would this typology also work in let's say in a more private commercial setting or should it work like that or what's your opinion on that. In terms of the research that we're doing that is really focused on the government versus the citizens, so I can't really say about how the law actually should be in these private settings. But in principle my intuition is that the typology is fairly comprehensive in the sense that I can't really imagine at this point new types of privacy that are really fundamentally different. We don't claim that these are the only types but we say that the types can easily be put in the categorization of these dimensions, and I would often then relate somewhat to the type that we put in there. But those are ideal types and there are many variations there, and I would imagine that in relationships between citizens and relationships between consumers and businesses the same types of privacy also matter and not others. However, the law might regulate them differently. Might also have similar types of regulation there similar protections but that's very context-dependent.
