Early modern privacy: sources and approaches

IF 0.6 Q2 LAW Comparative Legal History Pub Date : 2023-01-02 DOI:10.1080/2049677X.2023.2207386
Mary E. Trull
{"title":"Early modern privacy: sources and approaches","authors":"Mary E. Trull","doi":"10.1080/2049677X.2023.2207386","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The website for the Danish National Research Foundation Centre for Privacy Studies informs users in a pop-up window that their actions will be shared with third parties to ‘keep improving our service’, and offers the opportunity to opt out of information-sharing via cookies. This near-universal web-browsing experience is, perhaps, one of the quotidian modern surrenders of privacy that motivates the work of the Centre for Privacy, and this volume of essays, to better define the roots of our ideas about privacy in the early modern age. Lars Cyril Nørgaard’s introduction asserts that examining the sources of the notion of privacy ‘allows us better to understand our current condition, where we seem of our own volition to give up on our right to privacy’ (3). The problem, of course, is how to bridge the distance between a period, 1500-1800, in which privacy was neither protected by law nor considered a universal aspect of the human condition, and our own, which often views privacy both as a human right increasingly threatened by technology, and as a commodity that may be casually forfeited at a price as low as dismissing an intrusive pop-up. The early modern period of 1500–1800 in Europe has been seen as crucial in the development of modern notions of privacy by many theorists, notably Jürgen Habermas, Norbert Elias, Philippe Ariès, and Georges Duby. For these thinkers, a new division between a private sphere linked to the home and the body, associated with emotion and intimacy, and a public sphere of surveillance linked to","PeriodicalId":53815,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Legal History","volume":"11 1","pages":"98 - 101"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative Legal History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2049677X.2023.2207386","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The website for the Danish National Research Foundation Centre for Privacy Studies informs users in a pop-up window that their actions will be shared with third parties to ‘keep improving our service’, and offers the opportunity to opt out of information-sharing via cookies. This near-universal web-browsing experience is, perhaps, one of the quotidian modern surrenders of privacy that motivates the work of the Centre for Privacy, and this volume of essays, to better define the roots of our ideas about privacy in the early modern age. Lars Cyril Nørgaard’s introduction asserts that examining the sources of the notion of privacy ‘allows us better to understand our current condition, where we seem of our own volition to give up on our right to privacy’ (3). The problem, of course, is how to bridge the distance between a period, 1500-1800, in which privacy was neither protected by law nor considered a universal aspect of the human condition, and our own, which often views privacy both as a human right increasingly threatened by technology, and as a commodity that may be casually forfeited at a price as low as dismissing an intrusive pop-up. The early modern period of 1500–1800 in Europe has been seen as crucial in the development of modern notions of privacy by many theorists, notably Jürgen Habermas, Norbert Elias, Philippe Ariès, and Georges Duby. For these thinkers, a new division between a private sphere linked to the home and the body, associated with emotion and intimacy, and a public sphere of surveillance linked to
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
早期现代隐私:来源和方法
丹麦国家研究基金会隐私研究中心的网站在一个弹出窗口中通知用户,他们的行为将与第三方共享,以“不断改进我们的服务”,并提供选择不通过cookie共享信息的机会。这种近乎普遍的网络浏览体验,也许是现代人对隐私的日常放弃之一,这激发了隐私中心的工作,以及这本文集,以更好地定义我们在现代早期对隐私的看法的根源。Lars Cyril Nørgaard在引言中断言,研究隐私概念的来源“可以让我们更好地理解我们目前的状况,我们似乎自愿放弃我们的隐私权”(3)。当然,问题是如何弥合1500-1800年间隐私既不受法律保护,也不被视为人类状况的普遍方面与我们自己之间的距离。他们常常认为隐私既是一项日益受到科技威胁的人权,也是一种可以随意丧失的商品,代价低得就像解雇侵扰性的弹出式广告一样。1500-1800年的欧洲早期现代时期被许多理论家视为现代隐私概念发展的关键时期,尤其是j根·哈贝马斯、诺伯特·埃利亚斯、菲利普·阿里斯和乔治·杜比。对于这些思想家来说,一种新的划分,私人领域与家庭和身体有关,与情感和亲密有关,公共领域与监视有关
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Comparative Legal History is an international and comparative review of law and history. Articles will explore both ''internal'' legal history (doctrinal and disciplinary developments in the law) and ''external'' legal history (legal ideas and institutions in wider contexts). Rooted in the complexity of the various Western legal traditions worldwide, the journal will also investigate other laws and customs from around the globe. Comparisons may be either temporal or geographical and both legal and other law-like normative traditions will be considered. Scholarship on comparative and trans-national historiography, including trans-disciplinary approaches, is particularly welcome.
期刊最新文献
Arbeit und Familie in Nordwesteuropa im Spätmittelalter und in der Frühen Neuzeit / Travail et famille en Europe du Nord-Ouest au bas Moyen Âge et à l’époque moderne We, the King. Creating royal legislation in the sixteenth century Spanish New World The ideal river: how control of nature shaped the international order Intervention and state sovereignty in Central Europe, 1500–1780 Comparative nomogenetics: revisiting Wigmore’s oriental(ist) encounter and the taxonomy of his approach to global legal history
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1