Uma teoria sociológica da privacidade como um direito comunicativo
Resumo
Este artigo redefine a privacidade informacional à luz da teoria da comunicação de Niklas Luhmann, deslocando o foco das ações individuais para uma compreensão mais abrangente da privacidade informacional dentro do arcabouço teórico do referido pensador. Enquanto os estudos sobre privacida de têm sido tradicionalmente influenciados pela teoria da ação, este trabalho examina como as expectativas sociais em relação à privacidade informacional surgem e operam nos processos comunicativos. Embora Luhmann não tenha abordado explicitamente a privacidade, sua teoria tem sido aplicada de forma limitada quanto a esse tema. Com base nessas aplicações, este artigo oferece uma perspectiva mais profunda sobre a privacidade informacional, enquadran do-a na teoria de Luhmann e analisando seu papel na formação de normas jurídicas e sociais.
Referências
AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE. Restatement of the law, second, torts: § 652. 1977.
AUSTRALIA. High Court of Australia. Australian Broadcasting Corp. v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd, 208 CLR 199 (HCA), 2001.
BAGHAI, K. Privacy as a human right: a sociological theory. Sociology, v. 46, n. 5, p. 951–965, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038512450804. Acesso em: 22 jan. 2025.
BARENDT, E. "‘A reasonable expectation of privacy?’ A coherent or redundant concept?" In: KENYON, A. (Ed.). Privacy: A conceptual analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
BATESON, G. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972.
BEARDSLEY, E. Privacy: Autonomy and Selective Disclosure. In: PENNOCK, J.; CHAPMAN, J. (eds.). NOMOS XIII: Privacy. New York: Atherton Press, 1971.
BLOUSTEIN, Edward J. Privacy as an Aspect of Human Dignity: An Answer to Dean Prosser. New York University Law Review, New York, v. 39, p. 962–1007, dez. 1964.
CANADA. Court of Appeal for Ontario. Del Giudice v. Thompson, 2024 ONCA 70 (CanLII), Judges: Miller, Paciocco, and Coroza JJ.A., decides on: Jan. 31, 2024.
CANADA. Ontario Court of Appeal. Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32, decided on Jan. 18, 2012.
CANADA. Ontario Court of Appeal. Rina Del Giudice and Daniel Wood v. Paige Thompson, et al., case no. 41202, dismissed on 19 September 2024.
CANADA. Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Stewart v. Demme, 2022 ONSC 1790, Judgment given on 2022.
CANADA. Superior Court of Justice. Farrell v. Attorney General of Canada, 2023 ONSC 1474 (CanLII), decided on March. 23, 2023.
CANADA. Superior Court of Justice. Vanderveen v. Waterbridge Media Inc., 2017 ONSCSM, Judge: Paul Champ, decidido em 17 nov. 2017.
CANADA. Supreme Court. Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa inc., [1998] 1 SCR 591, at [23], decided on Apr. 9, 1998.
CANADA. Supreme Court. Godbout v. Longueuil (City), [1997] 3 SCR 844, at [66], decidido em 31 out. 1997.
CANADA. Supreme Court. R. v. Duarte, [1990] 1 SCR 30, decided on Jan. 25, 1990.
CITRON, D. K. Sexual Privacy. Yale Law Journal, New Haven, v. 128, n. 7, p. 1870-1960.
DECEW, J. W. The scope of privacy in law and ethics. Law and Philosophy, v. 5, p. 145–159, 1986.
FRIED, C. An Anatomy of Values. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970. p. 140.
GAVISON, R. Privacy and the limits of law. Yale Law Journal, New Haven, v. 89, p. 421–452, 1980.
GERETY, T. Redefining privacy. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, Cambridge, v. 12, p. 206, 1977.
GROSS, H. "The concept of privacy." NYU Law Review, v. 42, p. 34–35, 1967.
HARTSHORNE, John. The need for an intrusion upon seclusion privacy tort within English Law. Common Law World Review, [s.l], v. 46, n. 4, p. 287-289, 2017.
HUGHES, Kirsty. "A Behavioural Understanding of Privacy and Its Implications for Privacy Law." Modern Law Review, [s.l], v. 75, n. 5, 2012.
HUNT, C. Breach of privacy as a tort. New Zealand Law Journal, n. 1, p. 286, 2014.
HUNT, C. New Zealand’s new privacy tort in comparative perspective. Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal, v. 13, n. 1, p. 157-163, set. 2013.
KOOPS, B. et al. A Typology of Privacy. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, v. 38, n. 2, p. 483–512, 2017.
KING, M.; THORNHILL, C. Niklas Luhmann's Theory of Politics and Law. [s.l] Palgrave MacMillan, 2003
LUHMANN, N. A Sociological Theory of Law. London: Routledge, 1985.
LUHMANN, N. Social Systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995.
LUHMANN, Niklas. Law as a Social System. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
LUHMANN, N. What is communication? In: Theories of Distinction. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002.
McLUHAN, M. Understanding media: the extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.
MILLER, A. R. The Assault on Privacy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1971. p. 25.
MOREHAM, N. Beyond Information: Physical Privacy in English Law. Cambridge Law Journal, Cambridge, v. 73, p. 350–367, 2014.
MOREHAM, N. Liability for listening: why phone hacking is an actionable breach of privacy. Journal of Media Law, London, v. 7, p. 155–163, 2015.
NEW ZEALAND. Court of Appeal. Hosking v. Runting, [2004] NZCA 34, decided on Mar. 25, 2004.
NEW ZEALAND. Court of Appeal. Ian Bruce Hyndman v Robert Bruce Walker, CA507/2019 [2021] NZCA 25, Judgment given on 23 February 2021.
NEW ZEALAND. High Court. C v. Holland, [2012] NZHC 2155, Judge: Whata J, decided
on Aug. 24, 2012.
NEW ZEALAND. High Court. Faesenkloet v. Jenkin, CIV-2014-404-000873, [2014] NZHC 1637, Judge: Asher J, decided on July 11, 2014.
NEW ZEALAND. High Court. Grant v. Everett, CIV-2021-442-000015, [2022] NZHC 3109
NEW ZEALAND. High Court. Henderson v. Slevin, CIV-2013-409-000045, [2015] NZHC 366, Judge: Associate Judge Osborne, judgment on strike out and security for costs, decided on March 25, 2015.
NISSENBAUM, H. Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009.
NOBLES, R.; SCHIFF, D. A Sociology of Jurisprudence. Oxford: Hart, 2006.
PARENT, W. A. "Recent work on the concept of privacy." American Philosophical Quarterly, [s.l] v. 20, p. 341, 1983.
PARKER, R. B. A definition of privacy. Rutgers Law Review, New Jersey, v. 27, p. 275–281, 1974.
POSNER, R. "The right of privacy." Georgia Law Review, v. 12, p. 4, 1978.
POWERS, M. A cognitive access definition of privacy. Law and Philosophy, v. 15, p. 369–386, 1996.
PROSSER, W. L. Privacy. California Law Review, Berkeley, v. 48, n. 3, p. 383–423, ago. 1960. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z383J3C.
PROSSER, William L. Restatement of the Law (Second) Torts. Philadelphia: American Law Institute, 1977, § 652.
POST, R. C. The Social Foundations of Privacy: Community and Self in the Common Law Tort. California Law Review, Berkeley, v. 77, n. 5, p. 957–1010, out. 1989.
RORTY, Richard. The Linguistic Turn: Essays in Philosophical Method. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
RUESCH, J.; BATESON, G. Communication: The Social Matrix of Psychiatry. New York: Norton, 1951.
SCANLON, Thomas. Thomson on privacy. Philosophy and Public Affairs, [s.l.] v. 4, n. 4, p. 315-322, 1975.
SHANNON, C. E.; WEAVER, W. A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1949. p. 9.
SHILS, E. "Privacy: its constitutional vicissitudes." Law and Contemporary Problems, v. 31, p. 281–298, 1966.
STICHWEH, R. Systems theory as an alternative to action theory? The rise of ‘communication’ as a theoretical option. Acta Sociologica, [s.l], v. 43, p. 5–13, 2000.
STICHWEH, Richard. ‘Niklas Luhmann’. In: RITZER, George; STEPINSKY, Jeff (eds.). The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Major Social Theorists: Classical Social Theorists, Volume I. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. p. 20.
THOMSON, J. "The Right to Privacy." Philosophy & Public Affairs, v. 4, n. 4, p. 295–314, 1975.
UNITED KINGDOM. Court of Appeal. Murray v. Express Newspapers plc and another, [2008] EWCA Civ 446, decided on May 7, 2008.
UNITED KINGDOM. Court of Appeal. Weller and others v. Associated Newspapers Ltd, [2015] EWCA Civ 1176, decided on Nov. 20, 2015.
UNITED KINGDOM. High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts, Intellectual Property List. HRH Sussex v. Associated Newspapers, [2020] EWHC 1058 (Ch), at [90], decided on May 1, 2020.
UNITED KINGDOM. High Court of Justice, Chancery Division. Richard v. BBC, [2018] EWHC 1837 (Ch), at [231], decided on Jul. 18, 2018.
UNITED KINGDOM. High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division. Mosley v. News Group Newspapers Ltd, [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB), decided on July 24, 2008.
UNITED KINGDOM. High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division. Terry v. Persons Unknown, [2010] EWHC 119, decided on Jan. 30, 2010.
UNITED KINGDOM. High Court of Justice. Smith and others v TalkTalk Telecom Group Plc, [2022] EWHC 1311, decided on 2022.
UNITED KINGDOM. High Court of Justice. R (Wood) v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, [2010] 1 WLR.
UNITED KINGDOM. House of Lords. Campbell (Appellant) v. MGN Limited (Respondents), [2005] UKHL 61, decided on Oct. 20, 2005.
UNITED KINGDOM. Supreme Court. Bloomberg LP (Appellant) v ZXC (Respondent), [2022] UKSC 5, decided on 2022,
UNITED KINGDOM. Supreme Court. In the matter of an application by JR38 for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland), Judgment given on 1 July 2015.
UNITED KINGDOM. Supreme Court. R (on the application of Catt) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Judgment given on 4 March 2015.at [4].
UNITED KINGDOM. Supreme Court. Kinloch v HM Advocate, 2013.
VAN DER GEEST, S. "Privacy from an anthropological perspective". In: VAN DER SLOOT, B.; DE GROOT, A. (Eds.). The Handbook of Privacy Studies. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2018. p. 413-443.
VERSCHRAEGEN, G. "Human rights and modern society: a sociological analysis from the perspective of systems theory." Journal of Law and Society, [s.l.], v. 29, n. 2, p. 258-281, jun. 2002.
WARREN, S. D.; BRANDEIS, L. D. The Right to Privacy. Harvard Law Review, Cambridge, v. 4, n. 5, p. 193–220, 15 dez. 1890.
WESTIN, Alan F. Privacy and Freedom. New York: Atheneum, 1967
WRAGG, Paul. Recognising a privacy-invasion tort: the conceptual unity of informational and intrusion claims. Cambridge Law Journal, Cambridge, v. 78, p. 409–434, 2019.
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2025 Mark Hanna
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Os direitos autorais dos artigos publicados na Revista Direito Mackenzie pertencem aos autores, que concedem à Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie os direitos de publicação do conteúdo, sendo que a cessão passa a valer a partir da submissão do artigo, ou trabalho em forma similar, ao sistema eletrônico de publicações institucionais. A revista se reserva o direito de efetuar, nos originais, alterações de ordem normativa, ortográfica e gramatical, com vistas a manter o padrão culto da língua, respeitando, porém, o estilo dos autores. O conteúdo relatado e as opiniões emitidas pelos autores dos artigos são de sua exclusiva responsabilidade.
