Ayn Rand loved the Constitution. Privacy is not named as a protected right in the Constitution, but it is implied throughout. Ayn Rand recognized this, pointing it out in one of her more memorable quotes:
"Ours was the first government based on and strictly limited by a written document—the Constitution—which specifically forbids it to violate individual rights or to act on whim. The history of the atrocities perpetrated by all the other kinds of governments—unrestricted governments acting on unprovable assumptions—demonstrates the value and validity of the original political theory on which this country was built.”
I would say a simple case of hacking into a website and then divulging the private information collected would be immoral and criminal. But what if the private information was collected by a third-party with disregard of individual rights and the hacker meant to expose the collection? You got me.

The theme of "Anthem" seems to indicate that the author is horrified by the thought of loss of individuality and, by extension, privacy. So I should think that Ayn Rand did in fact believe that privacy is a right.

As an aside, I certainly wouldn't want to live in a society that doesn't value personal privacy. Hell, I'm pretty upset with the treatment of our rights (among them, privacy) in our republic in this, our 21st century.

Let's take a look at the aspects of what we deem "privacy".

The Fourth Amendment outlines the restrictions on the government in much of this regard, though the word "privacy" is never used. It is that unless the government has probable cause, it shouldn't be bothering us in the first place, and that unless they have a specific Warrant, they have no authority to conduct a search of our property (including person, land, or effects - which absolutely in my mind constitutes digital communications). In other words, they should respect the ability and prerogative of a citizen to go about his/her business without the oversight or approval of the government. To me, that's what privacy is about right there.

We can go on into the Fifth Amendment, where the government's relationship with regard to a citizen is outlined as being one of innocent until proven guilty. What this means in practical terms is that until and unless the government has reason by virtue of suspicious circumstances or behavior to involve themselves in our affairs, it should never go looking for evidence of that trouble. The "big brother is watching you" mantra is a violation of public trust because it inherently treats citizens as law-breakers rather than law-abiders.

In the classic parallel to Atlas Shrugged, it is the pretense to gain power that the government needs to watch over everything to keep us safe, when in fact we should say that first and foremost it is the citizens of this nation who bear this responsibility. The government should be relegated strictly to a responsive attitude, because that is the only way "innocent until proven guilty" can work. If one presumes the role of active "prevention" a la Minority Report, one must of necessity assume the worst of the citizens rather than the best.

"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.

Force and FRAUD. Don't forget "fraud". "Unauthorized access" is fraud (i.e. theft) and criminal.

(We should be sending all those b@$t@rds to prison.)

The very term "privacy" implies individualism and not collectivism.
Ayn would tell you that life, liberty, freedom, privacy, security and property all fall under the category of individual rights.
Without one you don't have any of the others and you will soon be consumed by collectivism.

Your title asks if its a right. Do you want to restrict the discussion to Objectivism, or discuss rights as your title states?
I answered this from the view of the Bill of Rights before.

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.

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
.

From a social point of view, I think that privacy is an evolving right - something that we would not have considered important until recently.

Cast your imaginations back to a small hypothetical Czech town, at some time between about 3000 BC and 1930 AD. Your family has lived in this town for millennia, as have the other members of the town, which is filled with aunts and 2nd cousins. Everyone knows what everyone else is doing as a matter of course. The town is one giant extended family. The idea of an anonymous life is outside of your social expectation.

Now imagine NY in 1950. You are surrounded by millions of strangers who are indifferent to your welfare and possibly inimical to it. Privacy becomes an issue.

Until post-WWII, most of the world was rural and privacy was moot in that context because the scope of interaction was small and personal. The FF (Founding Fathers, not Fantastic Four) were much closer to the Czech town than to the Internet and I think that while personal rights were important to them, it did not really occur to them that privacy was one of these rights.

We are evolving into a society that needs and values privacy and while we can rely on the durable foundation of personal rights to base our laws on, we are really building a new structure and should look at it in that light.

Jan

The exercise of individual rights, as instituted in the American form of government, requires at least intellectual privacy. Without freedom of thought, liberty does not exist. Objectivism is based on the concept of unobstructed self-interest and action, requiring at least intellectual privacy.

That being said, once our thoughts or actions extend beyond our private domain (like when they're posted on Facebook, or stored on a "cloud"), privacy ceases to exist. Personal responsibility is required to maintain real privacy. I store nothing on a "cloud", keeping my backup information local, and my Facebook profile contains no private information for myself, my family, or my friends (real ones, not a phony statistic). Maintaining privacy requires personal dedication and effort.

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.

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.

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...

If one does not have the right to privacy then what does one have with respect to privacy?

This is a really touchy subject I think. If you want it private, KEEP it private. Dont tell anyone and dont publish it anywhere.

But this attitude will surely cut down the ability of a society to collaborate, so the rules need to be pretty carefully crafted.

Emotionally, if someone hacks into my website or emails, I am pretty angry and want revenge on them. In the wild west, this would have been handled personally, first with talk, and then with violence. Hopefully, we can come up with rules that are fair and enforceable.

In the meantime, its SPY vs SPY- hire your own hackers to make your site safe, and to teach a lesson to those who cause trouble to others.

Yes.
O'Liar would agree.
And he would smile his smile as he moved his lips.

philosophically....you are begging the question...and are using the "stolen concept"...and by asking the question you also suspend your right to privacy...any claim to the contrary of "privacy" invalidates the idea...besides Objectivism, i refer you to Hobbes and Locke...

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.