I wrote something very different. The argument is: > the individual is responsible on his self, and is endowed with a judgement to carry on that responsibilit

I wrote something very different. The argument is: > the individual is responsible on his self, and is endowed with a judgement to carry on that responsibility, and that the judgement of his peers is not qualifiable as worthy in such an amount to override that of the responsibility bearer, so, exceptions aside relevant to the impact on others, the peers will leave the individual "in peace" and in suspension of judgement. This produces (logically) one side of the inappropriateness of having peering eyes on you: the peers do not have the qualifications to intrude .../hence/, privacy is a natural right. Because, by nature, you are responsible over yourself (you are that inside you), and the others are not, and their judgement is imperfect. So, what you do is your own business, naturally protected by right against the eyes of others (apart, of course, that behaviour which has consequences on others). > simple and direct Only proportionally to simplicity and the actual possibility of making something "direct"... As noted («Principia Mathematica»), "1+1" is not really direct... > "I don't like someone looking at me so privacy is a 'natural' right" But that is a secondary argument, and it is actually valid: one has the natural right not to be bothered, not to be disturbed. There has to be real, definite, proportional cause to break that rule.