Jesus said unto his disciples, “I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth.” John 15:15. Clearly the master has a right to privacy in matters which the servants are kept occluded. Likewise, if a master asks for his servant to recognize a change in the master’s affairs, the master is not obligated to reveal all that he has done in his affairs. The servant’s duty alone is to honor the will and word of their master. If the servant refuses and places a ransom upon that master’s freedom, even a ransom upon his chosen privacy, it can only be interpreted as treason against that sovereign master.
“[T]he concept of privacy embodies the ‘moral fact that a person belongs to himself and not others nor to society as a whole.’” Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747, 777, n. 5 (Stevens, J., concurring).
Part of that which belongs to the sovereign is their name, and in their choosing of a name is the right to be fully in control of their names in whatever papers and records are theirs. They are the master of their own affairs. They choose the indicators of themselves.
The people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. Perhaps one had a child who had run away from home, such as the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32). Perhaps the father’s servant chose to run around the town telling of that which had happened to deliberately embarrass his master. This would be considered wrong. It is an ancient common value that gossip is morally wrong:
He that is void of wisdom despiseth his neighbour: but a man of understanding holdeth his peace.
A talebearer revealeth secrets: but he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter.
Likewise, the faithful servant will keep his master’s affairs private.
One’s personal school records are no different, for they are clearly part of one’s papers and effects. When another person deliberately violates the privacy of such papers through depriving a person of control that which is theirs, their name or gender in such effects, it forces the privacy of another to be exposed to any given audience -- especially if the betrayer actively shares such records with others. In a brutal manner, unless they fulfill their ransom, their bribe, it is like forcibly tying the victim down before the world and stripping them naked for all to see. It violates their privacy.
Part Four -- The Right to Freedom from Deceit