SOME OBSERVATIONS AND THOUGHTS ON PRIVACY AS A COMMODITY by Michael E. Marotta <mercury@well.sf.ca.us> About a year ago, maybe less, Kevin Kelly suggested that privacy is or could be a commodity. It was on The Well in the EFF Conference on another topic entirely. He just dropped this bomb. I suggested a Loompanics article and he said he didn't have time but that I was welcome to develop the idea. So I proposed "Privacy as a Commodity" to Computers Privacy and Freedom (CPF94) in Chicago. 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. However, there is a lot of history between the first permanent settlement today's worldwide community. Merchant princes graced several ages. Metropolitan and cosmopolitan cities developed new patterns of interaction. Quite likely, the demand for privacy is relatively recent. There is a quote from Leonardo da Vinci: "When you are alone you are all your own." A brief look the pre-Socratics (ed., Honderich) reveals no discussions even remotely approaching "natural rights" from which privacy would be deduced or infered. Plato's "Republic" is well known. Tonight, discussing the ancient world with another numismatist, he pointed out that accumulations of wealth were virtually impossible before Roman Law. The Athenians (and others) would ostracize anyone simply for being personally successful and therefore a potential threat. Neither of us could identify the general who defeated the Persians and was rewarded with exile. In such an environment, a plea for privacy would be ludicrous or even lunatic. We have the saying in English: "A man's home is his castle." The Magna Carta (1215) had many provisions limiting the power of the crown and upholding the rights of free people (somewhat different for men than woman). Typical of them is this: "No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go or send against him, except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land." That sentiment continues today. However, force of arms is not the appropriate medium for securing your expectations of privacy. The Magna Carta limited the power of the state. It did not address problems of peer review and peer pressure. The best arrangements we have that work among equals are agoric. The marketplace depends on voluntary agreements for personal profit. The successful merchant doesn't argue religion with the client. ("Religion" of course includes art, politics, sports and anything else not proximate to supply, demand and price.) In this sense, privacy is inherent in the market. 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. 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.