Steve developed an Objectivist response to the challenge. (Much as we do not get along, he is a smart guy.) I would extend that with some other considerations.
As he pointed out by citing Rand's words, all moral rights are property rights. However, not all property rights are moral rights. For example, recently a news story surfaced about a ridiculous enforcement by a homeowners association (HOA) against a purple playground set. Silly as it was, the general principle is valid: you can sign away your right to a purple playground set. Conversely, we have lived in apartment complexes where the lease specified that all draperies must have white backing (for uniformity of appearance). So, we were contractually required to acquire those. Those examples set the context for the problems inherent in so-called "privacy."
It is like "pornography versus art": I cannot define it, but I know it when I see it.
We agree easily enough that your home is inviolate against physical intrusion. So, it is night time, you have your lights on and the shades up, and I can see you doing disgusting things like praying in front of a crucifix. Have I violated your right to privacy? No. In most states, the person is protected against "peeping toms." If your neighbor sees you praying, that is their problem, not yours.
Colin B: "According to Objectivism have your individual rights been violated equally should the government intervene (say you notice what your neighbor is doing... should you be able to call the authorities?)."
The question you pose is about artificially-enhanced perception (x-rays, infrared or whatever). Again, the same standard must apply. You can see what you see and your neighbor can be seen. (You can be seen.) However, no one's rights are violated. If your senso-tronic enhancers let you perceive that I am violating someone else's rights - say I have a "maid" chained up - and you call the police, then my rights were not violated. My right to privacy does not shield me from their right not to be imprisoned.
As I noted above, Frank Llyod Wright designed homes to maximize privacy. Your privacy is your concern. You can live in a glass house if you choose, and your neighbors must suffer the indignities of your lifestyle, as you must suffer their viewing them.
The claim to artifical enhancements is itself artificial. Some people have better eyesight, better hearing, etc. You are in a restaurant and assume that no one can hear you whisper a secret to your companion. But I have great hearing -- or a hearding aid, or a parabolic accumulator a mile away - and I do hear you. You cannot stop me from perceiving reality by any means under my power. Otherwise, I must ask: Do I need your permission to view Jupiter with my telescope? Can it be claimed that I am violating the privacy rights of Jovians?
I think that one source of your motivation here - pardon me for ascribing motive - is that you are looking for an absolute standard where none can exist. Objectivism (capital-O) is a kind of objectivism (lowercase-o), i.e, rational-empiricism, like the scientific method. It is not an absolutist philosophy such as Immanuel Kant's deontology ethics, or fundamentalist religions. In Ayn Rand's capital-O Objectivism, context is important. Yes, absolutes exist. The law of identity (A is A) is an absolute. The fact that humans have a nature as "man qua man" is an absolute. However, some admirers of Rand's fiction - I daresay far too many - take one line from Hank Rearden ("Try pouring a ton of steel without absolutes.") and use it to justify their own prejudices and preconceptual notions. One example is Steve Wolfer's claim that you can dress anyway you want in public. (It seems easy enough, to be sure.)
Steve Wolfer: I know that a person has the moral right to keep parts of his or her body covered and no one has the right to pull off those clothes or force them to disrobe, but that moral right derives from property rights to ones clothes and to ones body and that doesn't seem to deal with the x-ray glasses.
I have devoted long and consequential thought to this because I could be a college professor of criminal justice. What do I do if a woman (some person or persons of some kind or other) come into my class wearing full hijab? With their face and body totally covered, they could be anybody. The so-called "person" enrolled for my class could be the person herself, some other woman, some man... who knows? Therefore, I deny that you have an absolute right to cover your body or that you have absolute protection against having your coverings removed. (Airport security is too flawed an example to offer up here.)
(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 9/05, 7:16pm)