3 ms·

It extends, arguably, from the "Right to Property". > (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall

It extends, arguably, from the "Right to Property". > (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her property. This right has a history of controversy and various interpretations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_property https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_property

rhn_mk1 5y ago
How is a right to property related to a right to privacy? "Private property" is not using the same kind of "private" as "private communication".
- kelseyfrog 5y ago
  Here is a poor construction from right to property to right to privacy. 1. Assume the right to private property. 2. Acknowledge that some property is not just a tangible object, but can include a configuration of objects. An existing example of configuration of objects as property is crypto currency as private property or database records reflecting you bank account as private property. 3. Acknowledge that property ownership represents the exclusivity of possession. 4. By 2 and 3 the ownership of intangible property is the exclusive possession of a configuration of objects. 5. Acknowledge that the configuration of objects is isomorphic to information 6. Acknowledge that communication is the transmission of information 7. By 4, 5, and 6, Private communications is the exclusive ownership of the transmission of information.
  - rhn_mk1 5y ago
    I see the reasoning, but the flaw here is already in #2: > Acknowledge that some property is not just a tangible object, but can include a configuration of objects. While there is a configuration that constitutes: > database records reflecting you bank account as private property. it's in the owner's interest that those records are as widespread as possible, lest someone challenges the ownership of the property they describe. If they are widespread, they are not exclusive, and therefore are not owned (even if there might be a right to demand the existence and accuracy of the records).
    - kelseyfrog 5y ago
      We're definitely thinking about things differently. For example, Disney owns Frozen by way of copyright. However there exists many copies of Frozen on blu-ray and those copies are held by many different people. Disney's ownership of the content places limits on what people can do with those copies: not show it to large groups, not make additional copies, etc.
      - rhn_mk1 5y ago
        The bank doesn't hold a copy of your house, it holds a description of your assets (including contracts like money). And it's absurd to say that if something is your property, then also its descriptions are your property. That doesn't add up even assuming that pure ideas can be property at all.
        kelseyfrog 5y ago
        That's why people get worked up about the Eiffel Tower at night.
        rhn_mk1 5y ago
        That comes from copyright, though. Copyright is arguably something different than property rights, and is a very recent invention. That's why no one blamed scribes for copying books. You could make a case for private communication extending from copyright, but that's not what the parent claimed.
- f38zf5vdt 5y ago
  If the inability to keep your property private harms your ability to possess or use that property now or in the future, the ability to possess private property is being infringed upon.
  - rhn_mk1 5y ago
    In which circumstances would that be the case?
- saalweachter 5y ago
  Within the context of the United States, you can always fall back to the Ninth Amendment: > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. (There was a concern around the Bill of Rights, that by specifically listing out some rights it would create the belief they were the only rights; the Ninth Amendment was the compromise.)

rhn_mk1 5y ago

How is a right to property related to a right to privacy? "Private property" is not using the same kind of "private" as "private communication".

kelseyfrog 5y ago
Here is a poor construction from right to property to right to privacy. 1. Assume the right to private property. 2. Acknowledge that some property is not just a tangible object, but can include a configuration of objects. An existing example of configuration of objects as property is crypto currency as private property or database records reflecting you bank account as private property. 3. Acknowledge that property ownership represents the exclusivity of possession. 4. By 2 and 3 the ownership of intangible property is the exclusive possession of a configuration of objects. 5. Acknowledge that the configuration of objects is isomorphic to information 6. Acknowledge that communication is the transmission of information 7. By 4, 5, and 6, Private communications is the exclusive ownership of the transmission of information.
- rhn_mk1 5y ago
  I see the reasoning, but the flaw here is already in #2: > Acknowledge that some property is not just a tangible object, but can include a configuration of objects. While there is a configuration that constitutes: > database records reflecting you bank account as private property. it's in the owner's interest that those records are as widespread as possible, lest someone challenges the ownership of the property they describe. If they are widespread, they are not exclusive, and therefore are not owned (even if there might be a right to demand the existence and accuracy of the records).
  - kelseyfrog 5y ago
    We're definitely thinking about things differently. For example, Disney owns Frozen by way of copyright. However there exists many copies of Frozen on blu-ray and those copies are held by many different people. Disney's ownership of the content places limits on what people can do with those copies: not show it to large groups, not make additional copies, etc.
    - rhn_mk1 5y ago
      The bank doesn't hold a copy of your house, it holds a description of your assets (including contracts like money). And it's absurd to say that if something is your property, then also its descriptions are your property. That doesn't add up even assuming that pure ideas can be property at all.
      - kelseyfrog 5y ago
        That's why people get worked up about the Eiffel Tower at night.
        rhn_mk1 5y ago
        That comes from copyright, though. Copyright is arguably something different than property rights, and is a very recent invention. That's why no one blamed scribes for copying books. You could make a case for private communication extending from copyright, but that's not what the parent claimed.
f38zf5vdt 5y ago
If the inability to keep your property private harms your ability to possess or use that property now or in the future, the ability to possess private property is being infringed upon.
- rhn_mk1 5y ago
  In which circumstances would that be the case?
saalweachter 5y ago
Within the context of the United States, you can always fall back to the Ninth Amendment: > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. (There was a concern around the Bill of Rights, that by specifically listing out some rights it would create the belief they were the only rights; the Ninth Amendment was the compromise.)