


































Microsoft Word - Right to Privacy vs Right to Know 1


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2020; 11 (3): 1-8 

1 
 

A survey on the attitude of college students to the privacy right as opposed to 

the right to know 
 

Nader Ghotbi, MD, PhD  

 
Professor, College and Graduate School of Asia Pacific Studies 

Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University (APU), Beppu City, Japan 

Email: nader@apu.ac.jp  

 

https://doi.org/10.3329/bioethics.v11i3.50591   

 

Abstract: There are times when two essential human rights may appear to be in conflict, or need to be 

balanced against one another. This paper examines the right of a party, such as officials, a group of people 

or an individual, to ‘privacy and confidentiality’ when others may have a conflicting ‘right to know’ about 

them. Although similar conflicts have been studied by other researchers, there is still controversy over the 

rightful balance in situations driven by new information and communication technologies. I conducted a 

survey on the attitude of college students to the privacy right versus the right to know using an actual case 

at the university. First, I asked the students if they believed protecting the privacy of a married teacher who 

had fathered a child with a student was more important than the right of the school to know. Second, I asked 

if they believed a child born to a single mother in such a relationship has the right to know about his father, 

or the single mother has the right to keep that information confidential. Third, I asked the students if they 

believed in general that the ‘right to privacy and confidentiality’ was more important or the ‘right to know’. 

This paper reports on the results of this survey on 222 students at an international university in Japan. 

 

Keywords: College students, human rights, right to know, right to privacy, survey research. 

 
 (Some part of this article has been presented at the 20th Asian Bioethics Conference, 22-25 November 2019, Dhaka, 

Bangladesh). 

 

Introduction: In USA, the public ‘right to 

know’ was first suggested as a specific legal 

concept by Cooper in 1956 who was the 

director of a news agency at the time1. The 

right to know in his view meant ensuring that 

citizens would have access to information 

essential for protecting democracy. Emerson 

emphasized on the right to know as the basis 

for acquiring the needed information, and the 

communication of the information to others 

so that the freedom of expression would be 

realized2. John De Mott discussed the 

necessity of citizens’ access to governmental 

and public information for scrutiny while 

protecting the privacy of citizens from 

unwanted exposure3. He also emphasized 

that there could be situations of conflict 

between the two in which finding a balance 

could be a difficult task. However, according 

to him, the US constitution did not provide 

assurance for neither of these rights and 

courts could have their own interpretation, 

except for one general rule: citizens’ privacy 

must be protected unless disclosure of 

information is in the public interest. 

Situations may change; therefore, setting 

laws may not satisfy the dynamic need to 

balance the right to privacy against the right 

to know in every instance. An example is 

provided by Baker who referred to the need 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2020; 11 (3): 1-8 

2 
 

of the schools to access students’ data to deal 

with increasing acts of violence in school 

while a recent law had limited such access to 

ensure educational data of students would not 

be misused by third parties4.  

 

Viano pointed at factors that influenced the 

activity of media regarding criminal 

information related to individuals who 

needed to protect themselves against 

unwarranted exposure5. Viano emphasized 

on the role of social, cultural, and political 

forces in moving the balance to one way or 

the other which underscores the need of the 

society to develop policy based on a code of 

ethics. It can be said that the media play a 

significant role in gauging the public view as 

well as the legal system’s ruling over an 

acceptable line between the right to know 

versus the right to privacy.  

 

As Harris has noted, Hippocrates stressed on 

the physicians’ responsibility over the 

confidentiality of their patients’ medical 

issues in the 4-5th century B.C6. That is why 

the Hippocratic Oath includes a statement on 

the privacy of patients’ medical information. 

Without this sort of medical privacy, it is hard 

to create the needed trust in patients to 

provide the physician with all private 

information needed to make a diagnosis. 

However, the modern systems for 

management of medical information are far 

too complex to be maintained by a 

physician’s oath; meanwhile, these systems 

help provide the benefit of integrated access 

to the information by various healthcare 

departments. Wyld et al. discussed the 

challenges in the delicate balance of the 

privacy and confidentiality rights of HIV 

positive people versus the right to know of 

other patients and anyone else who might be 

affected by the risk of exposure to HIV7.  

 

Pape examined the situation where the public 

may benefit from access to more information 

about their doctors’ record of practice, while 

that might cause a change in the practice of 

physicians towards defensive medicine and 

finally leave the patients worse off, with a 

general decline in healthcare quality8. Borna 

and Avila discussed the issue of the need for 

confidentiality of citizens’ genetic 

information and its delicate balance, 

including the right of insurance companies to 

know about them to manage their risk9. 

However, access to such information might 

lead to significantly higher cost of health 

insurance or its denial from high-risk 

individuals because of their genetic makeup.  

 

Gross discussed the fragility of democracies 

and the need for continuous vigilance to 

protect them through the right to know and 

access to information, though that may 

conflict with the citizens’ right to privacy in 

some instances10. The important issue would 

be finding the right balance to the periled 

situation of safety and security in countries 

where terrorism became a real threat after the 

September 11 terrorist attacks on the US. On 

the other hand, many countries around the 

world have used the terrorism threat as an 

excuse to downplay the citizens’ right to 

privacy and confidentiality over their 

personal information and in some cases even 

legal entities have infringed on the rights of 

citizens. Such examples demonstrate the 

challenges facing ethical philosophers in 

balancing the right to privacy versus the right 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2020; 11 (3): 1-8 

3 
 

to know in a dynamic, modern and 

technologically driven world where 

information plays an important role in every 

aspect of the life of citizens.     

Deloney pointed to the result of studies that 

showed most adopted children as well as their 

birth parents wanted to have access to birth 

records while many US states limited such 

access to protect the privacy rights 

envisioned by law11. Banisar has suggested 

that the right to privacy and the right to know 

may together help hold governments 

accountable to citizens, but the potential 

conflict between them may lead to 

controversial situations where mechanisms 

are needed to reduce conflict and balance the 

rights12. Symons discussed the 2016 change 

in Australian law whereby donor-conceived 

children were given the right to access 

information of anonymous donors, including 

their name, date of birth, ethnicity, physical 

characteristics and genetic conditions, even if 

the donor had requested anonymity13. 

Apparently, the right to know won over the 

right to privacy in this case. But there are 

other cases arising in both the healthcare 

sector as well as social policy, information 

security and governance14. 

 

Some laws may already exist to help clarify 

the rightful balance in situations where a 

conflict arises between the right to privacy 

versus the right to know, such as leaning on 

the right of the community ‘to know’ about a 

sex offender having a criminal history who 

takes residence in a neighborhood15. 

However, the law may not specify what 

should be done in countless other examples. 

For instance, researchers in Pakistan 

examined whether a nurse should notify 

others to sexual abuse of a housewife by her 

husband when the hospital and local tradition 

insisted on keeping silent about it to 

presumably protect the privacy of the married 

couple16. This example demonstrates the role 

of culture and cultural differences in 

determining the right balance, and other 

complex issues which need to be considered 

before arriving at an ethical decision.  

 

Research method: A survey was 

electronically distributed among 229 college 

students enrolled in the course of Bioethics in 

2018. They were asked to examine an actual 

case and answer three essay questions that 

followed the description of the case study. 

The survey was designed to require 

responders to reflect on the case and use 

arguments in order to support their answer, 

rather than immediately choosing from 

among 4 or 5 possible choices. The essay 

format was an attempt to receive well thought 

responses rather than reflex answers. The 

description of the case was as follows: 

“Assume you are a university professor. A 

female student from a different school has 

contacted you to report that your 

colleague, a married man with a child, has 

deceived her into an affair and then left 

her with nothing after getting her pregnant. 

She is now a single mother with little 

income to support her child and, at the 

same time, to keep studying at the 

university until graduation while she 

cannot ask her family to support her 

because in her culture (as a Kazakh) it is 

shameful to have a child without a father. 

She is heart-broken and resource-less.”  

 

Question 1: With enough proof that she is 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2020; 11 (3): 1-8 

4 
 

telling the truth, is the right of the teacher 

to privacy and confidentiality more 

important, or the right of the school to 

know? Explain your choice. With a little 

investigation, you realize the same story 

happened to a Japanese lecturer by the 

same man. She is also a single mother 

now working in another school in Tokyo 

but is upset that she was deceived into an 

affair with a married man teaching at your 

university. Both women have chosen not 

to reveal the identity of the father to their 

child because they don’t want their 

children to have any relation with an evil 

man, as they say, in the future.  

 

Question 2: Do you think the children 

have a right to know who their father is, or 

the mothers have the right to keep this 

matter as a private issue and keep it 

confidential? Explain your choice. 

 

Question 3: With this case as an example 

among tens of other examples, how would 

you discuss the right to know versus the 

right to privacy and confidentiality? 

Which one is more important and why? 

 

The use of an actual case study helped 

motivate the students to discuss it seriously 

and work on arguments that would support 

their view on the matter. By providing two 

different perspectives, the privacy right of the 

teacher (toward the school) and the privacy 

right of the mothers (toward their children) 

against the right of the school and the 

children to know, respectively, the survey 

enabled the students to consider the conflict 

from many angles. Finally, they would 

suggest which right seemed more 

fundamental to them in general.  

 

Findings and Discussion: Out of 229 

students, 222 (%97) responded to the survey 

questions. The results of the survey have been 

summarized in Table 1. As seen in Table 1, 

the majority of students believed that the 

school’s right to know dominated the right of 

the teacher to his privacy; 148 students (%66) 

considered the right of the school to know 

more important. Their arguments included 

the potential of harm to other students 

including a similar risk to female students, 

the responsibility of the school to provide a 

safe environment and to protect students 

from possible abuse, the social responsibility 

of teachers to demonstrate higher standards 

of moral behavior considering the special 

merits of a professor’s position in a university, 

and the use of deceptive behavior that could 

have legal ramifications. However, 64 

students (29%) considered the right of the 

teacher to his privacy more important. Their 

arguments included the fact that the student 

was an adult and thus responsible for her own 

actions, the matter had not happened on the 

campus and was thus a personal matter, and 

that law had not envisioned similar cases of 

deception as illegal, even though they may 

not be ethical behavior. There were 10 (%4) 

students who wanted both the school to know 

and the privacy of the female student to be 

protected. Five students (%2) believed that 

the right to privacy and the right to know as 

in case of the first question were equally 

important, and thus suggested using a third 

approach where mediation could be used to 

reach a satisfactory compromise solution for 

both the teacher and the single mother, 

including teacher’s financial support for the 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2020; 11 (3): 1-8 

5 
 

child. The responses of 5 students were not 

clear and were thus disregarded. 

 

As for the second question regarding the right 

of the mothers to keep the identity of the 

father hidden versus the right of the children 

to know the identity of the father, 144 

students (%65) in total believed that children 

had the right to know their father. Their 

arguments included the inalienable right of 

every individual to know both their parents, 

the emotional strain on a fatherless child, and 

the potential of keeping good relations 

between a father and his children in the future. 

Among this group of students, 28 (%13) 

students believed that children should know 

their father but only later when they reached 

a level of maturity that enables them to 

understand the complicated situation. 

However, 59 students (%26) believed the 

mothers’ right to privacy dominated the 

children’s right to know their biological 

father. Their arguments included protecting 

the mother from more emotional burden and 

stress, the futility of a father who would not 

financially support his biological children, 

and possible further risks to both the mothers 

and children. Sixteen (%7) students 

considered both rights to be equally 

important and thus recommended the use of  

counselling for the mothers (and also 

children) to help them make a decision. Three 

students did not provide a clear response to 

this question. 

 

As for the third question over the choice of 

the right to privacy and confidentiality versus 

the right to know, in general, an 

overwhelming number of students (125 

students, %56) responded that both rights 

were important and the decision in each case 

needs to be reached after careful 

consideration of circumstances especially the 

possible consequences, the parties involved, 

and the nature of conflict. For example, many 

students referred to the right of privacy over 

the use of the Internet by people versus the 

right of the governments to search for 

terrorism suspects, and the right of people to 

know about corrupt officials and businesses 

free of governmental interference. Having 

stated their concerns, 34 students (%15) 

believed that in general the right of 

individuals to privacy would be a more 

important issue, and 50 students (%22) 

believed that the right to know would provide 

more benefits and would thus be more 

important than the right to privacy. Thirteen 

students (%6) provided no clear response to 

the third question, which might be related to 

the difficulty they had in choosing a side; 

however, their answers were too vague and 

were thus disregarded. 

 

A question in this research was whether 

students would be able to discuss and argue 

over the complexity of balancing the right to 

privacy against the right to know. I 

hypothesized that the extremely common use 

of social media platforms such as Facebook 

among college students would enable them to 

be familiar with the privacy versus publicity 

issues over the Internet. The rich arguments 

and debates submitted by the wide majority 

of students confirms this point. In the case of 

Facebook, as an example, when a user 

determines the level of privacy of his/her own 

page, and every time he/she decides to 

confirm or reject a friend request for access 

to his/her page, and so on and so forth, there 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2020; 11 (3): 1-8 

6 
 

is a need to balance privacy against the will 

to publicize one’s personal information, 

sociopolitical views, interests and friendships. 

The majority of college students in this 

survey demonstrated their familiarity and 

recognition of the significance of a balance 

between the right to privacy and the right to

Table 1: Results of a survey on 222 college students over the right to privacy and confidentiality 

vs. the right to know 

 

Q1: Teacher’s right to privacy and confidentiality vs. School’s right to know about 

teacher’s actions 

64 (%29) students support teacher’s right to 

privacy 

 

 

 

138 (%62) students support school’s right to 

know  

10 (%4) students also want extra care for 

victim’s privacy 

in total 148 (%66) students want the school to 

know 

5 (%2) students consider both rights equally important and suggest mediation instead 

(5 students provide no clear answer) 

 

 

 

Q2: Mothers’ right to privacy and confidentiality vs. Children’s right to know their father 

59 (%26) students support mothers’ right to 

privacy  

 

 

116 (%52) students support children’s right to 

know their father 

28 (%13) students recommend waiting for 

child maturity 

in total 144 (%65) students want the children 

to ultimately know their father 

16 (%7) students consider both rights equally important and suggest counseling instead 

(3 students provide no clear answer) 

 

 

 

Q3: Right to privacy and confidentiality in general vs. Right to know in general 

34 (%15) students see right to privacy as 

more important 

50 (%22) students see the right to know as 

more important 

125 (%56) students consider both rights equally important and suggest case by case 

decisions 

(13 students provide no clear answer) 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2020; 11 (3): 1-9 

 

7 
 

know. However, no student referred to 

another approach for achieving such 

balance, which is in fact a basic discussion 

when the general topic of rights versus 

responsibilities is debated.  

 

Let me elaborate; one may try to balance the 

right to privacy against the responsibility 

one has regarding transparency. It is not 

only the government, which should be 

transparent about its policies and financial 

transactions. For example, any individual 

who engages in starting intimate relations 

with another individual should be 

transparent about his/her marital status and 

step by step over other aspects of his/her life 

in an intimate relationship. Moreover, one 

may try to balance the right to know (by 

publicizing information) against the 

responsibility to respect other individuals 

and their autonomy to live as they choose. 

Following on this approach may help us 

avoid the conflict between the two rights, 

while maintaining a healthy balance in the 

execution of these rights regarding the 

responsibility that comes with them.    

 

Conclusion: This survey demonstrated the 

ability of college students to engage in 

serious discussions over complex and 

controversial situations where the right to 

privacy and the right to know are in conflict. 

The majority of students (%65) stated that 

both the right to privacy and the right to 

know are important, and a balanced 

decision would depend on the specific 

situation in each case and the possible 

consequences that may be envisioned. 

Interestingly, the students had come up with 

various lines of argument including a 

reference to the existing laws, social norms, 

and a consideration of possible 

consequences to any decision. For example, 

some students referred to the futility of 

informing the school system as it would 

probably just try to cover it up to protect its 

image which turned out to be true. It is 

possible that college students are well 

aware of the many instances that the right to 

privacy is constrained by the right to know, 

as they are facing such decisions on an 

everyday basis using social media platforms 

such as Facebook, Instagram, etc.  

 

It is important to consider that while the 

majority of students had picked a side 

answering to the first and second question, 

they had realized that it was not possible to 

make a general ruling on the third question 

without having the specifics of the case and 

the situation in hand. As the majority of 

students have stated, both of these rights are 

important in a democratic society and when 

conflicts appear, the specific circumstances 

and particularly the consequence of a 

decision need to be carefully examined. The 

responses also show that the law does not 

provide an answer in many instances and 

therefore, there is a need for ethical debate 

and decision-making to resolve conflicts. 

 

References: 

1. Cooper, Kent. The Right to Know: An Exposition 

of the Evils of News Suppression and Propaganda. 

New York: Farrar, Strauss and Cudahy. 1956. 

2. Emerson, Thomas I. Legal Foundations of the 

Right to Know, Wash. U. L. Q. 1. 1976 

3. De Mott, John. The People’s Right to Know 

Versus Right of Privacy. Speech: talk presented to 

the Fineman Discussion Group. Philadelphia, PA. 

1978. 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2020; 11 (3): 1-9 

 

8 
 

4-. Baker, M. The teacher’s need to know versus the 

student's right to privacy. Journal of Law Education, 

1987; 16(1), 71-92. 

5- Viano, E. C. The news media and crime victims: 

The right to know versus the right to privacy. In E. 

C. Viano (Ed.), Critical issues in victimology: 

International perspectives. (pp. 24-34). New York, 

NY, US: Springer Publishing Company.1992. 

6- Harris, R. E. The need to know versus the right to 

know: Privacy of patient medical data in an 

information-based society. Suffolk University Law 

Review. 1997; 30(4): 1183-1218. 

7- Wyld D. C., Cappel S. D., and Hallock D. E. The 

right to know and the right to privacy: HIV testing 

and health care management. The Health Care 

Supervisor. 1992; 10(3):56-66. 

8- Pape, J. Physician data banks: The public's right 

to know versus the physician's right to privacy. 

Fordham Law Review, 1997; 66(3), 975-1028. 

9- Borna, S. and Avila, S. Genetic Information: 

Consumers’ Right to Privacy versus Insurance 

Companies’ Right to Know a Public Opinion Survey. 

Journal of Business Ethics. 1999; 19(4): 355-362.  

10- Gross, E. The struggle of democracy against 

terrorism protection of human rights: The right to 

privacy versus the national interest the proper 

balance. Cornell International Law Journal. 2004; 

37(1): 27-94. 

11- Deloney, W. Unsealing adoption records: The 

right to privacy versus the right of adult adoptees to 

find their birthparents. Whittier Journal of Child and 

Family Advocacy. 2007; 7(1): 117-144. 

12- Banisar, David. The Right to Information and 

Privacy: Balancing Rights and Managing Conflicts. 

The World Bank. Governance Working Paper Series. 

2011. 

13- Symons Xavier. The right to know versus the 

right to privacy: donor anonymity and the Assisted 

Reproductive Treatment Amendment Act 2016 (Vic). 

The Medical Journal of Australia. 2017; 207(9): 377-

378. 

14-Pandiani, John A, Banks, Steven M. and Schacht, 

Lucille M. Personal privacy versus public 

accountability: A technological solution to an ethical 

dilemma. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services 

Research. 1998; 25(4): 456-463. 

15- Crane, A. E. The right to know versus the right 

to privacy. Annual Survey of American Law. 1986; 

3: 645-666. 

16- Hirani, Afshin A. A. and Rafiq, Nasreen. Silence 

in violence: a curse or a goodwill? Eubios Journal of 

Asian and International Bioethics. 2019; 29(3): 109-

112.  

 

 

 

 

 

Author Contributions: The Author conceived the 

idea, did the literature review and wrote the 

manuscript. He also checked the manuscript 

meticulously.  

 

Conflict of interests: No conflict of interest in this 

study to declare. 

 


