[arlort]

> I don't see how it is less clearly defined than any other human right

Human rights are famously almost impossible to clearly define because they're an entirely abstract category relying very much on cultural consensus for their practical definition

> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. > Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

> Is this definition problematic?

Yes, very much so. By qualifying that the interference must not be unlawful it essentially makes any interference by law (like what was proposed here in the first place) fine

> privacy, family, home or correspondence

This is very restrictive, for instance there's nothing in it about online storage or your laptop / phone since they're neither your home, family or correspondence

> unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation

This manages to be so unclear that if applied strictly it'd ban any criticism of a politician or anyone else as long as you can construe it as "attacking their reputation"

[taink]

Exactly, I completely agree with you. This is what baffled me about the parent comment: "Unlike other human rights, the right to privacy has always been a bit fuzzy with a ton of exceptions and caveats".

Compare the right to privacy with other human rights, and I find it as clear and succinct as its counterparts (if not clearer and more succinct in some cases).

At the same time, given the international nature of these laws, I disagree with you on their problematic nature. They are (in my view) meant as a basis of diplomatic debate and not enforcement (which would be impracticable). They are to be complemented by organic law, because on their own they are unenforceable.

[xienze]

> Human rights are famously almost impossible to clearly define

Actually, not really. Just apply the "desert island" thought experiment to any given "human right." If you're not afforded that "human right" should you wind up on a desert island one day, it's not really a "human right" but rather a "right" that requires state backing to exist (and subject to its whims as you pointed out).

[viridian]

I must not understand this analogy, because it seems to only draw the conclusion that we are to be the objects of a totalitarian state in all cases. Taking the first fundamental right from the US constitution, the right to life, is not a given on a desert island. Any number of things, including venomous snakes and scorpions, could be your end almost immediately.

Does this mean that any given state is also justified in arbitrarily killing people on the whims of its controller?

[arlort]

The fact you think that qualifies as a "clear" definition is fascinating.

This feels like just a reflexive regurgitation of the distinction between positive and negative rights that has no relevance to the discussion at all

[immibis]

What?