The question "why privacy" has at least two different meanings. The first one, "why do you value privacy for yourself" has a fairly obvious answer. Privacy implies control over one's personal information, and more control is clearly preferable to less. But the question also has a second meaning, "why do you think everyone should have more privacy?" The answer to this question is not so obvious. Just because each individual wants more privacy for himself, it doesn't follow that everyone will be better off when everyone has more privacy. Cypherpunks accept the idea that the widespread deployment of cryptography will increase privacy for everyone (or at least everyone who owns a computer and an Internet link). They also argue that this is a good thing. The reason most often cited is that privacy serves as a barrier for coercion. But privacy is also a barrier to almost every other kind of social relationship. For example, economists recognize that many market failures/inefficiencies are caused by information asymmetries (i.e., the fact that in a potential exchange one party has more information about the exchange than the other. The canonical example for this is the used car market.) Increased privacy would seem to only exacerbate these problems. What arguments can be made that the benefits of increased privacy outweigh its costs, considered for society as a whole?