BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS / Šturma, Mozetic (eds)

constitutional legislator’s choice, both terms, was inspired by Hubmann’s doctrine, which uses a concentric spheres scheme to illustrate the degrees of privacy manifestation, placing in the most restricted degree the intimacy and the secrecy, followed by the private sphere and the personal sphere, which would encompass public life. In this thinking, private life would point to the distinction between public life and private life, while intimacy would refer to more particular and personal events. He prefers the term “privacy”, which would unify both concepts and which has been adopted by the most recent doctrine, such as Gustavo Tepedino’s, José Afonso da Silva’s and René Ariel Dotti’s. George Marmelstein, on the other hand, adopts a more fluid conceptualization, that emphasizes to cover not only the right to the isolation, but the right not to have divulged personal details: The basic idea guiding the improvement of these values is that neither the State nor society, in general, should intrude, unduly, into the personal lives of individuals. In this context, innumerable prerogatives of an individual- subjective nature are included, such as the right to seek peace of mind and tranquility, the right to be left alone (the right to be isolated), the right not to be snooped, of not having personal details disclosed, nor of having the image and the name exposed against the will of the person. 7 In his precise approach on the subject, Marco Aurélio Rodrigues da Cunha and Cruz calls the attention to the difficulty of establishing a terminological conceptualization, but agrees that the best definition is “the right to privacy”: It is indisputable to recognize that it is not easy to delimit and conceptualize such terms: private life and privacy. A conceptual difficulty that, in any case, must be effectively protected and cannot propitiate a depreciation of such personality goods that. The dynamism that the human being has as a characteristic of his personality makes it elusive to establish lines or degrees of privacy of the individual, making it difficult to establish a settled concept. Individuals, given their individuality, can be more or less communicative, introverted or extroverted, establishing a manner to preserve their privacy. Therefore, the subjective/dynamic conception of privacy has gained prominence, which understands that the legal protection given to such personality well-being does not guarantee a determined, static, fixed privacy: it guarantees the right to possess it. 8 The conception of Marco Aurélio Rodrigues da Cunha e Cruz, which confers subjective and dynamic profile to privacy, seems to be more connected to the social and cultural dimension of this fundamental right, which in fact demands a more open and adapted interpretation to the reality of society information that has implemented radical reflexes in the privacy of citizens, as Antonio Enrique Pérez Luño says: It is important to remember that we live in a society where information technology has become the emblematic symbol of our culture, to the point 7 MARMELSTEIN, G.: Course in Rights Fundamental. 6 ed. rev. current. ampl. São Paulo: Atlas, 2016, p. 135. 8 CUNHA E CRUZ, M. A. Da: The constitutional configuration of the right to own image. Joaçaba: Editora Unoesc, 2015, pp. 58-59.

193