SOME OBSERVATIONS AND THOUGHTS ON PRIVACY AS A COMMODITY by Michael E. Marotta <mercury@well.sf.ca.us>
Nice essay. I look forward to reading the full version.
Frank Lloyd Wright said that privacy is the hallmark of civilization. He built his houses to ensure the privacy of the occupants. He pointed to the village as an environment without privacy. Today we say that we live in a global village. Therefore, the expectation of privacy is inappropriate.
Huh? I don't see how this conclusion follows. Historical examples of villages with extreme privacy abound. For example, in densely-packed Middle Eastern villages and cities, the completely walled villa (or whatever they might call it) is the norm: the walls are high, the only entrance is a locked gate, and what goes on behind the walls in the gardens and whatnot is invisible to the outside world. This is a tradition that can (apparently, but I'm not a real scholar, so don't rely on my memory) be traced back to Sumerian cities. Certainly some forms of concern for privacy are fairly new. And at least some cultures in some ages had very little privacy, as when many families lived in crowded tents or caves or whatnot. But the example above, seen also in the stone dwellings of Northern Africa, in the pit dwellings, etc., suggest privacy was important. Possibly not for the abstract reason of "privacy" per se, but for the protection of a family against assassins, plotters, etc., and for the protection and hiding of the women in the family. Our modern focus on privacy does not seem all that different.
Quite likely, the demand for privacy is relatively recent. There
Well, I disagree.
Today, however, we buy and sell information about people. If you buy a new automobile, you are a potential client for insurance, if not for a Caribbean vacation. Since the problem is agoric, the solution must be agoric: you will have to invest in objects or processes that show their return in increased privacy for you.
A very good point, that people must take responsibility for protecting their own privacy. This could mean better locks on their doors, more judicious use of credit cards, encryption of e-mail, and so on. Technology chosen by those affected is ultimately the best solution.
It is possible that there is another set of solutions. There may be something beyond politics and the market. For instance, it is possible that a philosophical revolution will cause us to freely give information we now hide if we choose to merge with the Great All. No doubt still other paths exist. Be that as it may, for now, market solutions seem the best way to address problems in privacy.
Well, I hope this isn't how you plan to close your piece (if there was more to your article, I didn't get it). The point about transcending our need for privacy in the light of the Great All is a very weak ending. But the whole issue of "privacy as a commodity" is a good one to explore. I think Kevin Kelly may've thought of that at the Cypherpunks meeting he attended about a year ago (he actually attended two of them, in December and January); he said something at the time about this. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.