I'd say that depends on the location. If it's pointed in my bedroom window, or on a drone flying over my privacy-fenced back yard, I would consider that a pretty forceful invasion of privacy.

You are mostly correct: Govt. initiates force against those who have imposed force on others. But it may otherwise impose force to protect our rights; e.g. restrict some people's actions to protect others.

Yes.
Ayn said that the problem with our political system is: One side argues, "If you want your life you will give up your freedom."
The other side argues: "If you want your freedom you will give up your life."
"...Neither side is facing the fact that freedom and life are a the same thing. Without one you don't have the other."

Maybe you're using a different definition of "initiate force". I think the police and military are for responding to other uses of force, not for initiating force. I suspect it's a definition issue. I think of the person burgarizing a house where no one is home as initiating force and the police as responding to stop them from doing that.

What do you think the police and military are for? Of course govt has to initiate force to protect us.
Of course, it should be done at a minimum - only for our protection.

The choice of association as well as the choice of self direction are both individual rights from which the right of privacy, non-association, has to be recognized.

As to placing personal information on a website or any other 'place' where an unlimited number of people can and do gain access, either 'authorized' or 'unauthorized', is simply foolish and government's or business's demand that one do so is the initiation of force.

So how would a hacker breaking into a database and stealing all your financial data and then using it fit in? That would seem to be rather forceful.

IMHO, force is more than just brute physical. If someone hacks into a database and steals your personal data, that is a form of force being inflicted upon you to take what is yours and use it. If the gov't has a monitor that can capture your private conversations or pictures, or web use, that is a form of forceful data gathering, unexpected, unusual and undisclosed. That, I think adds up to force used against you. Our concept of "force applied to your person" needs to be expanded and modified to include anything of yours, that no one has a reasonable right, or expectation of having.

No. Government has no right whatsoever to initiate force. That would be a violation of the very reason for having a government in the first place. Government can act to stop initiations of force and fraud and the threat thereof. But they cannot legitimately initiate force per se.

What force is here in having a camera on? None.

Privacy is not well defined. Nor is there any guarantee in reality of "security" which is also a bit of work to define. The right of a reasoning being to reason, choice and act on their choices is the core - not some laundry list.

It really depends on what is meant by the word as it is smeared to cover far too much. It is not so obvious as we get the technological means in all our hands to have a perfect memory of all we see and hear. Is it an invasion of privacy if I have a perfect memory of what I see and hear when interacting with your or viewing say some production of yours? Would it be one if I was just born with a perfect memory? No? Then why is it one if my smart phone extends the power of my mind?

It is not privacy per se I am worried about as that the government and many non-governmental organization besides think they have every right to interfere in my life and liberty using such information as they acquire. We can't put the information genie back in the bottle. But we can severely limit what can be done to people with the information.

I would say you have your answer. Any gathering of information by force is a violation. So, hacking, even unauthorized surveillance, should qualify. However, anything done on public time or money or equipment, inherently belongs to the public (i.e. Clinton, and the Pennsylvania email scandal) and are not protected.

Indeed. If there was actually penalties to hacking and fraud, then things would get a wee bit better. Just the term "hacking" implies forcing your way into something. Theft. Taking of personal property.I would go with the "Deadly Force is authorized" option, works for nuclear weapons.

Ayn Rand had a tendency to see things in black and white. That was much easier to do in her era. In the light of the newer technologies and our propensity to expose hidden truths, we have a spawned a generation of activists and/or consumerists who blur the lines. I often see greys in societal behavior and outcome as well as an unbalanced, imperfect application of the law.

Yes it is a initiation of force when done to anyone whom has not initiated force fraud or coercion. However, initiating force against or because of, attempted, planned or the actions of fraud, coercion
and intended force is to be permitted.
This is how the Twelve Visions Party and Mark Hamilton's Prime Law, would look at this scenario.

Privacy is part of one's freedom and property.
Rand: "Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy." Rights have to include privacy.
But see my post above for exceptions.

Yes, I believe so, at least if your contract with the website owner (or any business you deal with) spells this out. It is high time for the "third party exception" in existing 4th Amendment court precedent to go away.

While we're at it, it may well be a good idea for lawsuits over privacy issues to become private matters themselves unless the winning side wants them exposed. Until then they only lead to the Streisand Effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisa...

Govt. has a monopoly on the initiation of force.
Where appropriate, Govt. can interfere with one's privacy. See my post below.

One has a right to property. But privacy is a much broader term. Where privacy must be compromised to protect your or others' rights, then no - it's not a right. E.g. if you withhold information in the name of privacy that is needed to catch a criminal, then Govt. has a right to extract that info from you. Where info gathering required to stop terrorists requires Govt. to collect data on you, then you do not have the right to privacy of that info.

Note also that if you share information on public sites, you have relinquished your privacy of that info.

"The right of people to be secure in their persons," expresses to me, a right to privacy in the Constitution. Without privacy, a person just becomes a part of the hive, and is no freer than anyone in a collectivist society. Privacy is a manifestation of freedom which is an absolute right. It is the very essence of the word Liberty.

Hello B,
Would you accept the following?
Information is value. Stolen information is stolen value. Information about the individuals is their own. Only the individuals can decide with whom to share their own information in return for value, a trade. The traded information in not public, until the individuals give their consent.
Many individuals crave for publicity. Let them. All the others are entitled to the ownership of their own information, in private.
It is the government that is the most prominent and an insatiable collector of unneeded information about the individuals. Google is a close second.

If one intercepts a thief and throws his catch onto the street for all to pick up (while not profiting from that himself), is that "taking possession of stolen property?" If a hacker exposes illegally or immorally collected personal information and throws it out there to bring awareness to the issue, is that theft?

my right to my life and my person directly implies the right to
have my life honored and not invaded or coerced. . if force is used
to invade or pressure me to obey someone else's will, it is criminal. -- j
.