Introduction

 According to Thomson, most people nowadays seem to have no clear or surefire answers in defining the right to privacy as they tend to confuse and completely associate it with other rights related to this such as the right “to be forgotten,” “to be left alone,” and “to property” without really focusing on the aspect of privacy. In fact, most people are oblivious about privacy wherein they only acknowledge it knowing that there is something special about this right that makes the person feel "a special source of discomfort" that comes from other violations against the things that are of value to them; moreover, most people also seem to not comprehend that having rights is not equivalent to having the authority to claim something as your own  (Thomson, 1975).

 Because of the lack of awareness (regarding the said right) evident among the people, they are now more prone to having their privacy imposed by hackers and the like without knowing how to defend themselves in courts. While they may know that any form of intrusion is an immoral act, they do not have any firm legal or moral grounds and evidence to support their claims. In line with this, injuries dealt through these are known as privacy harms, but how does one know if what they feel is enough to be considered as one? More importantly, what exactly is a privacy harm in the first place? 

 Privacy Harms is conceptualized as "the unfavorable and negative consequence of a privacy violation" (Calo, 2010). But what is the harm actually? What is it that makes privacy harm unique from all the other harms? Isn't violation just like mere apprehension? How can this even be recognized by the court if ever there's no tangible evidence? Questions like these are circling around privacy practitioners all the time. 

 In this discussion, I will further explain the in-depth nature of privacy harms, so that we will have a deeper understanding of the said topic. 

Questions and Answers

Why is it essential for one to value his privacy?

   Before we get to the discussion on privacy harms, we must first know why privacy is important because people tend to simply look past the term. People only remember the essence of privacy whenever they feel an interest and need to it. 

   Most people nowadays seem to disregard the underlying importance of privacy in one’s life. With the surfacing of technological advancements and trends forming throughout the years, people begin to gradually lose their privacy through the means of social media, everyday transactions like credit cards and phone bills, medical records, and the recently controversial one: domestic surveillance. An example that could well illustrate how people are not aware that their privacy is gradually declining is the 2013 scandal on NSA which Snowden exposed.

   In defense of NSA, people have raised the “Nothing to Hide” argument which states, “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.” It is the famous paradoxical argument regarding privacy that has left millions of people dumbfounded as to how one can argue against it. It supported the mission of NSA in a way that it implies even if the privacy of one is gone as long as the person is not doing anything wrong then nothing bad will happen. 

   While that myth of having nothing to hide has been widely debated by people, Snowden has actually debunked the whole argument during one of his visits to Reddit with just one claim saying, “Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say”  It simply means that the right to privacy is equal with all the other rights people have. 
   
   Furthermore, NSA does not directly hack into the personal gadgets or intrude personal spaces of the people, but instead, they retrieve data from their phone companies, bank and credit card providers, and such. While they commit these acts of data gathering, they are more-so legal because they own their rights over phone carriers which are not equivalent to Constitutional provisions of an individual such as the 4th Amendment regarding one’s property. This implies that our claim to privacy is really becoming less and less confidential because of NSA; however, people nowadays are blind to see that even social networks and credit cards are already opening up risks for privacy intrusions. This is the reason why we must start to consider giving importance to the aspect of privacy because it is very outrageous that people are not aware of the fact that some of their personal information are already being gathered even before the NSA scandal. 

   The reasons for the significance of privacy are limitless as it is subjective in the eyes of man, but, for the meantime, we could refer to Rachels’s article on “Why Privacy is Important”; moreover, he stated that privacy plays a huge and critical role in the relationships of people as one has the decision whether or not he would share some information that would later affect his personal life (Rachels, 1975).

1) It is necessary for one's thoughts to be kept in private especially during “competitive situations” - It would be a disadvantage to the person if his opponent would know his secret tactics which will always give the latter an upper hand in any type of match.

2) Some embarrassing experiences are better kept secret in order to prevent dignitary harms - If the public were to know about someone's personal shenanigans then it would not take a long time before he becomes the laughing stock or the talk of the town.

3) There are high-risk possibilities of the occurrence of unfavorable consequences if one's personal information specifically regarding medical records is to be disclosed to the public. - People generally look at someone in a different manner once they find out that the person has contracted a serious disease or had taken outrageous doses of drugs and alcohol in the past; thus, resulting to certain social ties being severed.

4) Setting limits around one's personal life is a must especially for other information that is irrelevant in the context of commerce and finance. - People who tend to apply for insurance and/or jobs are usually required to render necessary information in order to fulfill certain criteria before successfully being accepted in the said applications. This gives the company rights to further know about one's capabilities in paying off debts and such which sometimes overlap with other personal information like political views.

What is the difference between privacy harm and privacy violation?

   A privacy violation occurs when someone, let's say a third party, tries to gather information or simply intrude the privacy of another person without the "victim" knowing anything about it. It can simply be understood in terms of committing an offense that does not harm anyone. An example would be trespassing on someone's property without dealing any harm to the owner; however, as the trespasser walks within the area, he accesses details about the area which are not publicly shown and known to others. 

   A privacy harm happens when a privacy violation crosses the line and the "victim" is already aware and anxious about the matter; however there are some cases wherein privacy harm can happen without a violation which is actually contradictory to the conceptualized meaning of it. But as for now, we can think of privacy harm as an innate feeling wherein the victim is having troubled thoughts because of tendencies wherein the victim might be harmed because there might be people either spying on the person or planning to use an information against the person. 

 Yes, we can consider the Peeping Tom ideology which is quite rampant in cases concerning privacy. Privacy harm can be viewed in two perspectives which are internal and external. Internal simply concerns the victim who is not aware that he is being spied or observed by others which means that no harm is dealt. On the other hand, the external factor consists of the observers who accumulated personal information of the victim without his consent, which means that it is a violation. 

 Consider, as an example, going to a picnic trip in a city park. As you pitch up your tent, you realized that about two kilometers away, a family picnic is consequently happening simply because you saw them with your binoculars. You start to observe them which means that you are getting information about an aspect of their privacy life which could be classified as "standard undetected peeping." 

  Even though no harm is being done, there is clearly a threat due to the observation even if the target is unaware. It would actually resort to much information being collected which would lead to the tendency of the information being wrongly used for future intentions against the person. 

 According to the Indiana Law Journal, subjective harm, in simpler terms, could be called as the "perception of unwanted observation." It results to unwelcoming mental states such as embarrassment and anxiety stemmed from the fear of believing as if one is being monitored. It can also be triggered the moment the person feels uneasy or even if he thinks that something just does not feel right (Calo, 2010). 

 In addition to that, subjective harms can also happen without the presence of an onlooker or spectator at the moment, which means that the sense of privacy violation can be felt even after the event of being watched. A case fit for this explanation would be the case of De May v. Roberts, wherein the lady was giving birth amidst the presence of the doctor and the so-called medical doctor's assistant. Little did she know that the assistant is actually an untrained acquaintance who doesn't have any background of medical practice at all. The court still recognized her plea and allowed her recovery from a privacy violation despite the fact that she did not complain during the time of labor. 

 In comparison, one thing that makes subjective privacy harm different from objective privacy harm is the process of observation. There are plenty of types of observation simply by reading reports or personal details, watching someone, or even listening to others' conversations. Gavinson, who wrote about, '''Privacy and the Limits of Law,''' stated that observation may include "everything from a casual observation with an inhibited effect on individuals that makes them more formal and uneasy" (Gavinson, 1980). Furthermore, even suspected and alleged observations are enough to be considered as a harm. It makes me think that the people now need privacy as a right more than ever since the interest of having it has already been there ever since before the time of experiencing the harm. 
 
 An example wherein perceived observations are rampant is taking place in the Panopticon Prison tower which is a circular institute that holds the cells of the prisoners around the perimeters of the building.  The Panopticon (pan means all; opticon means observation) Prison Tower was designed by Jeremy Bentham during the 18th century. Some say that the design was linked to the Greek giant Panoptes who had about a hundred eyes which would make him a great watchman. The prison was very effective since it forced the inmates to act as if they are being watched all the time since they could never discern whether or not they are being watched at the exact moment. The direction of this act consists of the observer (watchman) watching the observee (prisoner). We can see that the harm being experienced by the prisoners are unwanted. 

 The objective privacy harm, on the other hand, is the forced and unexpected use of information in an adverse manner which means that personal information gathered is obtained with the means of other intentions. According to Warren and Brandeis' Law Review, gossip is an example of the said harm. It so much more than just the spreading of false information. At first, it might seem harmless, but it actually has a potential to be used in evil means in some cases. It actually perverts the mind of the victim which lowers the social standards and moral values of the said victim. Once it starts to widely circulate, that is the time privacy harm can most likely happen (Warren and Brandeis, 1934). 
 
 Objective privacy harm can occur when personal information are used in cases such as identity theft or even murder. There are plenty of cases which tackles on the said harm, but two of the known ones are Schmerber v California and Raynor v Maryland. 

 The first case is about Schmerber, a drunk driver, who refused to let the police take some blood samples during the car accident. But as he was admitted to the hospital, the police ordered the doctor to hand them some of his blood samples for the chemical analysis which proved that Schmerber was, indeed, under the intoxicating influence of alcohol. While the act of the police violated the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the right to privacy of the defendant still proved to have a weaker stand compared to justice in legal terms. 

 The latter case also has a similar take on the notion of privacy as a right. Raynor who was convicted of rape strongly refused to let the police gather evidence that would help in proving whether the verdict was guilty or not; however, the police still snagged some of Raynor's sweat from a chair he had been sitting in during an interrogation session which was used as the evidence that finally showed the truth. While the act of the police can be deemed as legally moral, it is actually immoral in terms of the fact that Raynor did not consent his DNA to be taken. The essence of consent was lost in these cases which further led to the intensity of the objective harm as the information was coerced. 

 Subjective and objective privacy harm are both related in a sense that it is analogous to anticipation and consequence respectively on the loss of the control of personal information thus leading to the intrusion of privacy. 

=== How do privacy harms affect the person through the sense of being observed by others or even just in the mind? ===

 In relation to what I have mentioned in the previous question, observation, which is a huge factor in contributing to privacy harm, affects the individual in terms of the feeling of discomfort as well as the tendency of experiencing apprehension. 

 The symptoms or pre-requisites of a privacy harm could be anything that could fall under embarrassment to invaded and leaked personal info without consent. While the sense of feeling humiliated and the like might seem to be harmless in the eyes of some, it actually varies from the person experiencing the harm itself - Some might just brush it off while others would make a deal out of it. 

 An unwelcoming state of "psychological arousal" also rises in the midst of the presence of an unwanted observation whether the other person may be real or even just imaginary. It is harmful and unhealthy in the mind of a person to experience privacy harm in an excessive manner because it usually damages the person emotionally and psychologically. That feeling of experiencing privacy harm can also equate to the emotions that start to take control of oneself once he is openly shamed just like by being seen naked by the public or being ridiculed for an unintentional but shameful act considering the fact that it is completely unwanted (Calo, 2010). 
 

 In relation to Privacy and Tagging in social media, the age of information has opened up various forms of online technological advancements such as voice recognition, geo-location services, and tagging. While these may seem utterly beneficial to one, hidden encroachments can lurk just around the corner. 

 Let's say that a guy uploaded a lot of hilariously embarrassing yet personal pictures concerning past experiences some time ago. Assuming that he intentionally made his pictures be shown in public or even set in the "friends-of-friends" viewing option in order to rack up a huge number of likes, it will somehow give him the benefit of the doubt concerning the possible harms which might happen in the future. His friends might like the picture then soon enough complete strangers would be able to see it too. Who knows what their intentions may be if there is any. 

 Similarly, the rise of Facebook became the dawn of tagging which is convenient for one to know who the people in the picture are. But the catch of this is, as each time one is tagged, a certain hash code (which detects records and improve throughout the increasing number of similar data files) would be more and more developed until it fully recognizes the face of a person even without the need of any manual tag.  Next time one photo becomes posted, the app would automatically just tag the person even without any consent from the user. 

 The possibilities of one's personal information being discreetly obtained by others are endless, especially during the digital age. Simply having the thoughts of having one's own privacy intruded by others is also considered a privacy harm that is why people must be wary on how they share their information online. 

 The sense of experiencing a privacy harm can happen without anyone in the background.  In a sense, it can be innate because it could happen even without any violation or whatsoever. It is the person himself who senses and reacts to a certain stimulus regarding his personal life despite the fact that there seems to be nothing wrong about a certain situation.  

 For a clearer understanding, we could think of a scenario on receiving e-mails especially with the means of google click-through that are just randomly sent to users as a form of an online advertisement. A horizontally-challenged teenager who is occasionally bullied at school finally decides on doing exercise and eating healthy because he could not stand the hurt words that people were throwing at him anymore. Later that night, he sent an e-mail to his father from abroad about him wanting to lose weight and change for the better. A few days later as he checks his inbox, he sees a message from an unknown sender. He clicked it and the moment he noticed a discount offer on supplementary diet pills, he immediately felt nervous even though the truth is that commercial businesses do not take personal data from people. The only thing that businesses, which we can refer to as third-party, are certain of is that some people are pursuing the mode of healthy living that is why they randomly send promos to people online based on the topics and information being mentioned in the e-mail. Moreover, the data which goes to third parties are only in the form of impressions wherein the calculated amount of clicks in the link are measured in google click-through rates which do not take any personal information from the private user. In addition, the third party and google itself only view the private user as an abstract and not someone in particular. 

 In short, privacy harm can affect anyone even if the person did not even release any valuable information regarding his personal life. The fact that there is a feeling of a slight tinge of unease concerning the personal information being known by others is already enough to trigger privacy harm. 

 With the rise of information gathering by third-parties, the difference between privacy, confidentiality, and anonymity start to blur. The thing that sets privacy apart from the latter two is that the information in this aspect is kept unlike in the other two wherein certain information is actually shared. 

 While the concept of privacy is easily distinguishable among the three, the distinction between anonymity and confidentiality is the one that is quite confusing to many. 

 In the context of volunteered participation of research studies, confidentiality occurs when the results of a certain test can be traced back to its owner; moreover, the personal information that is shared in this aspect is kept to a minimum. There is a limit in which a certain form of agreement is made in order to prevent the test facilitators in disclosing any form of information about the participant.  As long as no outsider knows about the connections even if there is a known link between a participant and his results then it can be deemed confidential (Caven, 2014). 

 Anonymity, on the other hand, is when the participant does not share even a tinge of personal information which makes it improbable for anyone to know who the results can be linked with. In fact, a "unique identifier" must be used by the person if he were to come and get his results (Caven, 2014). Simply speaking, anonymity occurs when information is shared but the identity remains completely unknown while in confidentiality, the identity is known by a certain few. 

Harms can occur in various forms which all affect the victim in an undesirable manner.

 A common type of harm is known as the physical harm which involves at least two people wherein they deal with a strong physical contact with each other such as punching and kicking. While mere punches and kicks can not cause severe damage towards a person, a more unlawful and ill-intended action can be deemed as an assault. Even without any intent, a person can still do physical harm against others. 
 
 Another type of harm is the psychological harm which comprises of emotional harm which could happen due to loneliness, societal pressure, and even fear.  An example would be depression, and a common anti-depressant is known as the SSRI drug. The said drug configures the varied degrees of serotonin considered as a mood-enhancing chemical in the body. While this may seem to be the most efficient way to curing depression, it is most likely to further harm the person because the level "chemical imbalance" could not simply be assured by the doctors as of now. 

 The third type of harm is known as the dignitary harm which is in line with defamation. This harm affects the individual by destroying his relations with society since his reputation is ruined. Cases associated with libel and slander fall under this category. 

 According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a harm is known as "any physical or mental injury," but a privacy harm is much more different than what it seems. Some people deem privacy harm as an overstatement to privacy intrusions; however, there is more to it than simply just a harm itself. 

Here is my current criterion on the necessary qualities of a privacy harm: 1. Can originate as an autogenic harm 2. Must impose the will of another 3. Encompasses other types of harms wherein it relates to the others in a way that it includes emotional, spiritual, and dignitary harm 4. Can happen without the presence of another being 5. May have future repercussions that will trigger greater effects of privacy harm 6. Sets aside the essence of consent and trust 7. May have long-term effects which could even last permanently

 Human rights are universalised laws that are created by the state in order to promulgate equality and justice. It is the government's obligation to protect its citizens no matter what race, nationality, or gender because every human is entitled to these rights. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights in 1948 provides the spearheading of this beneficial and significant implementation that has changed society; however, there would always be adversities in any aspect of time as such harms and wrongs are recognized. 

 Harms and human wrongs both have a similar negative stigma; however, their concepts are distinct from each other, but it does not mean that they can never go together.

 Anything that deals with any form of inflected injuries or deaths are considered as harms in which they directly have an effect to the person. example: backbite, torture, assault

 Anything that destroys or violates the rights of others are human wrongs. This can sometimes be indirect because those who tend to do it focus on dealing harms against the person in a way that does not immediately acknowledge the "suspect." example: false witness, gossip

 They are often related to each other because wrongs usually lead to harms especially in any case of murder. 

An example for this would be abortion. Abortion has been always been deemed as an immoral act because it violates human rights even if the fetus is still in the womb. In fact, this act actually cuts both ways because it it destroys the right to life of the fetus which leads to possible harms on the physical, emotional, and dignitary aspect of a mother. Physical in a sense that it would most likely lead to uterine perforation, placenta previa, and even the infamous ectopic pregnancy. Emotional and psychological because even if the mother did it on purpose, some form of natural maternal bond and ties with the fetus was severed which could literally equate to losing a loved one because he is still her son after all. Lastly, dignitary because as the act has been done, it would be impossible for some to look at the mother in the same way, knowing that she did something so wrong.

 In the Right to Privacy, Warren and Brandeis discussed the order and nature regarding privacy harms. The law used to only give a remedy for any affected life or property that lies within the borders of physical interference. Later on, the law of nuisance and the law on protecting the reputation of a person, which concerns intangible injuries, was implemented. It is a given fact that the law used to focus solely on physical injuries at first which had developed to acknowledging intangible and intellectual properties (Warren and Brandeis, 1934). 

 Six and a half centuries ago, there only used to be a tort of assault wherein it explains “harm” as an emotion of fear; moreover, according to Daniel Solove, the article of Warren and Brandeis was the one which paved the way for the court to recognize emotional distress injuries. It may sound like a huge step in the importance of considering privacy harms as a legal matter, but the courts still held a downside to it which is known as “Privacy Act 1974.” 

 “Privacy Act 1974” states that '''A person who was abjectly humiliated by widespread release of highly personal information by the government results in no compensation whereas a person who suffered about a dollar in damage due to minor violation will receive a thousand dollars.''' 

 There are many incidents and cases wherein privacy harm is recognized by the court because of tangible evidence such as inaccurate government records. One example would be the unfortunate incident of an innocent Muslim Activist named Julia Shearson who was allegedly stopped by the police at the airport for being inaccurately tagged as "Armed and Dangerous." She and her daughter Dalal were forcefully handcuffed and sent into interrogation without the customs even having a valid warrant for arrest. Her daughter felt traumatized during the process. Soon enough, Julia found out that she was on the watch-list tagged as a terrorist. After countless of court filings and appeals, they finally found out that the Automated Targeting System was, in fact, mistaken as tagging her as a person of interest. It was a computer error, after all. After the result, she filed "Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act requests with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection and the U.S. State Department," which led to her name being cleared as the records from the incident were crossed out. 

 While cases with concrete evidence are easily recognized, there are some which do not have tangible evidence but are still considered as a harm which stemmed from a violation. Two of the many cases that consisted of emotional or dignitary injuries are FAA v. Cooper and Doe v. Chao. 

 The case on FAA v. Cooper: It is a requirement for the pilots (in this case, Stanmore Cooper) to update the FAA on their periodical medical certificate that requires the disclosure of any disability, illness, or operation and medications currently being taken in order to be given the liberty to operate an aircraft. Cooper was diagnosed with HIV during 1985 wherein he kept the results to himself since it is considered an information that is life-threatening even during his re-application for a medical certificate in 1994. However, the symptoms and the virus itself became worse in the succeeding year which made him apply for long term benefits on disability under the Social Security Administration wherein the latter exposed the medical records without his consent. This led to Cooper experiencing severe emotional distress because not only did he lose his job, but also his dignity; moreover, his privacy was violated and he, in turn, experienced privacy harm. In this case, we can see that emotional distress in line with defamation is already enough for it to be recognized by the court as he sued the Federal Aviation Agency for intentional violation of his privacy. 

 The case on Doe v. Chao:  This case is an essential case which led to the redefining of the statutory evidence regarding the Privacy Act 1974. Buck Doe, a coal miner, filed an application for the Black Lung Benefits Act which required its applicants the input of a Social Security Number. The Department of Labor released the security numbers on research databases and documents which Doe deemed as a violation of his privacy. He sued the Department of Labor which, eventually, led to his $1000 compensation due to "distress" caused by the leakage of information. While some argued that his intangible evidence was insufficient to be considered as a harm, Justice Ruth Ginsburg brought up the fact that concrete evidence such as a fake credit card could easily be used as well. They have come to a conclusion that the court now is more lenient on the evidence that construes damages especially if the government has released personal information whether it may be accidental or not. 
 
 Going back to the Right of Privacy article, we can see that Warren and Brandeis actually implied that emotional and spiritual harm is a higher priority compared to ruined property and broken bones. We can infer from this an idea such as the reason why privacy harm is not whole-heartedly recognized in courts is because people tend to oversee the important aspect of emotional damages, unlike physical ones which result in tangible evidence. While the court might still reject some cases which have no material evidence, there has been a development on the recognition of privacy harms throughout the years (Warren and Brandeis, 1934). 

 People know that the only way to be able to have complete privacy is through living off-the-grid; moreover, it is somehow a euphemism for completely isolating oneself from any mode of communication, location, and potential connections by any means. This promotes individuality but is isolation worth sacrificing one’s social relations with others wherein our real motive in privacy is to actually strengthen it by forming relations and associating ourselves with the world that is inhabited by all. 

 While that may seem possible for some, the cons outweigh the pros. In relation to Privacy and Intimacy, Aristotle said that “Man is by nature a social animal…” Surely, the person would not just obviously lose his mind, but the fact that no one is around would open up tendencies wherein the lone person himself would long for the company of others. In the process, we can assume that the person would imagine the presence of someone or something that would somehow deter the solitary state of one in terms of his mental awareness. Sooner or later, he may think that someone could probably be watching him at some point in his life. 
 
 In my opinion, privacy harm is inevitable just like how a man cannot live without communication. If everyone were to just live inside a cave and never talk to anyone or at least have an access on some form of technological advancement that relays up-to-date information about the world then there would be no point in living anymore. People would definitely have privacy, but the essence of it would be lost. We need privacy to measure the level of our bonds with others while having the freedom and power to hide or share information and experiences by having control over one’s life or simply being true to oneself by choosing the right decisions as with treating everyone else as an end in itself and so much more. We can simply acquaint ourselves with the ideology of carpe diem once we decide to not run away from the events of experiencing privacy harm since we need to structure realistic expectations in everything that happens and will happen. And as stoic philosophy always implies, we must always be of good cheer, no matter what happens. 

Further Questions

• What is it that makes privacy “harm” a real harm?
• What is the difference between a harm and a human wrong?
• How can the harm rooted from privacy harm without any violation be recognized in courts?
• Is there any way or form of technological advancement that can lessen or even rid the potential risks of privacy harm?

= References =

Calo, R. (2010, July 16). “The Boundaries of Privacy Harm.” Retrieved May 23, 2016, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1641487

Caven, P. (2014). “Confidentiality VS Anonymity – What Difference Does it Make Anyway?” Retrieved May 23, 2016, from https://thoughtexchange.com/confidentiality-vs-anonymity-what-difference-does-it-make-anyway/

Gavison, Ruth. “Privacy and the Limits of Law,” 89 YALE L.J. (1980).

Rachels, James. “Why Privacy is Important.” 'Philosophy & Public Affairs', Vol. 4, No. 4 (Summer, 1975).

Solove, D. (2014, June 25). “Privacy and Data Security Violations: What’s the Harm?” Retrieved February 15, 2016, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140625045136-2259773-privacy-and-data-security-violations-what-s-the-harm

Thomson, Judith Jarvis. 'Philosophy and Public Affairs'. 4th ed. Vol. 4. New Jersey: Wiley, 1975. Print.

Valentino-Devries, J., & Calo, R. (2010, August 26). “Q&A: How Do You Define ‘Privacy Harm’?” Retrieved May 23, 2016, from http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/08/26/qa-how-do-you-define-privacy-harm/

Warren S., and Brandeis L., D. 1890, “The Right to Privacy”,' Harvard Law Review', 1934.

De May v. Roberts. (1881). Retrieved May 23, 2016, from http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/DeMay.htm

Doe v. Chao. (2003). Retrieved May 23, 2016, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1377.ZS.html

FAA v. Cooper (10-1024). (2011, November 30). Retrieved May 23, 2016, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/10-1024

Raynor v. State. (n.d.). Retrieved May 23, 2016, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/md-court-of-appeals/1676725.html

Schmerber v. California. (n.d.). Retrieved May 23, 2016, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/384/757.html