An increasing number of theorists are advocating transparency (i.e., the relinquishing of protection over information on every front, from individual to governmental) over against our existing privacy intuitions as a result of new technologies and their impact on traditional expectations and protections.

Privacy is a highly desirable product of liberty. If we remain free and sovereign, we may have a little privacy in our bedrooms and sanctuaries. As citizens, we'll be able to demand some. But accountability is no side benefit. It is one of the fundamental ingredients on which liberty thrives. Without the accountability that derives from openness-enforceable upon even the mightiest individuals and institutions-how can freedom survive?

In a similar vein, Etzioni argues that the way to achieve greater freedom from governmental scrutiny and control is to "have somewhat less privacy," by which he means greater transparency within communities.  Brin postulates that the question is not whether privacy is minimized by technology-he believes that it already is-but whether the ability to peer into all corners of private life is the purview of the powerful few or of all of us.  By embracing transparency, the power to observe lies not with the Panopticon's Inspector but with the inmates, so to speak. But this is a flawed assessment. Even assuming that a movement to greater transparency would be reciprocated in all levels of society, it disregards the fact that privacy safeguards compelling individual interests. The call for transparency paints too broad a stroke.

The goal of this work is accomplished in two phases. First, I will argue for an understanding of privacy that allows for the balance between market rationalization and individual rights within contemporary society in the face of emerging technologies that are eradicating traditional sensibilities of physical space. The confusion among philosophers and legislators over the definition of privacy has prevented us from reaching an understanding that can mediate between competing interests in such environments as the workplace. Definitions which make better sense in physical space than virtual are taking on correlatives that are not necessary aspects of privacy and which admit counterexamples that prevent protections from being implemented. To talk about privacy in a way which makes sense of being watched in one's home through a window but not observation based on keystrokes or hidden surveillance in a work context will not yield principles to adjudicate between competing interests. It is my contention that privacy can be defined but that it must be contingent on the social context, requiring specific rules to be negotiated and legislated that prevent incursions unnecessary to the terms of the association. It is situational and contingent, not transcendentally normative.  Because it is relative to the context, or the terms of engagement (in a work setting), it is flexible to handle the demands engendered by the expanding vista of information technologies, be it physical or virtual.

Second, with this understanding in hand, I will apply these insights to two challenges to privacy within the workplace, or better to say, two areas of contention in the balance between an employee's interest in privacy and an employer's business objectives. The first is drug testing, used in both pre-employment screening and post-employment verification of the non-use of illegal substances to determine if an employee or applicant is a non-user, with the assumption that drug use has a deleterious impact on workplace safety and profitability. Opponents of drug testing argue that it exceeds the legitimate bounds of an employer's right to obtain personal information, in that it amounts to an inquiry about employee behavior outside the workplace, an inquiry resulting in information which is not relevant to the terms of employment. In my initial analysis I will develop a series of principles that are situational and contingent (in line with my conclusions on privacy) but reasonable (in light of existing legislation and social norms) to validate this and other threats to employee privacy, with the goal of arguing that drug testing is ethical under the terms of contract.