A conditional right to privacy

I think the key point is missing in your article.

People do have a right to privacy in their private lives: i.e. what they legally do in their private space, even for people who hold public positions. So Max Moseley was right to argue that his private sexual activity should not have been splashed across the tabloids for public titillation.

Such privacy, however, should be lost if the person makes public representations which contradict their own behaviour. In other words had Moseley said or implied in public that he disapproved of sadomasochism, the press would have the right to rebut his utterance with evidence of his own behaviour.

Such a privacy law would, I believe, provide both privacy and reduce much of moralistic hypocrisy spouted by our politicians.

The right to internet privacy

There are two types of information about which people are particularly sensitive.

Many people use the internet to access pornography and have discreet encounters with others. Records of this activity could potentially be used for blackmail or vindictive embarrassment by criminals or by the state.

Some people (too few in my opinion) use the internet to make political statements. People fear that they could face discrimination in employment or become subject to state surveillance as a result.

Privacy is a valuable right not a luxury.

A right to privacy on the internet

Does the citizen have a right to look at an internet page without the state or commercial organisations being informed about it?

I say ‘yes’ the government, it would seem, says ‘no’

Such monitoring appears even more intrusive than one where every book or magazine bought had to be notified to the police. In that situation at least the police would not know which page I had looked at and for how long.