ABSTRACT This article conceptualises a more public, more socialised notion of privacy in contrast to the archetype: that my privacy is of interest and value only to me. Doing so has historically left claims to privacy exposed against claims to free speech, with its long pedigree and generally acknowledged wider instrumental role. This article provides a corrective. The first part offers a typology of rationales at one of two meta-levels: privacy as a means to effect assurance or as a means to protect someone's activities. The second discusses the results of some small-scale empirical doctrinal research: a sample analysis of 27 UK privacy cases looking to identify the judicial ascription of the value of privacy, specifically whether any judges conceptualise privacy as having a more social, or public, value or utility. The results are perhaps not unexpected. Almost exclusively, judges frame their rationales for protecting privacy in purely individualised terms.

中文翻译：

---

个人隐私的社会化概念化：英国MoPI案例中“公众”概念的理论和实证研究

摘要与原型相反，本文将概念化了一个更公开，更社会化的隐私概念：我的隐私仅对我感兴趣且有价值。这样做在历史上一直将隐私权与言论自由权区分开来，它具有悠久的血统书，并被广泛认为具有广泛的工具作用。本文提供了一个更正。第一部分在两个元级别之一中提供了理论的类型学：隐私是实现保证的一种手段或一种保护某人的活动的手段。第二部分讨论了一些小规模的经验学说研究的结果：对27个英国隐私案件的样本分析，旨在确定隐私价值的司法归属，特别是是否有任何法官将隐私概念化为具有更大的社会价值或公共价值。或实用程序。结果也许并不意外。法官几乎完全以纯粹个性化的术语来阐述其保护隐私的理由。