Privacy as a Commodity
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.
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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
SOME OBSERVATIONS AND THOUGHTS ON PRIVACY AS A COMMODITY by Michael E. Marotta <mercury@well.sf.ca.us>
privacy. Today we say that we live in a global village. Therefore, the expectation of privacy is inappropriate.
T.C. May wrote:
Huh? I don't see how this conclusion follows. Historical examples of villages with extreme privacy abound.
This raises another matter that isn't dealt with here, namely that historically there has been a grey area between issues of privacy and the use of shame. Shame is a powerful societal determinant -- an example of it is the ostracism faced by any healthy young male who didn't volunteer during the 'Great' War. It can raise armies, empower religions, help keep suddenly noble bloodlines pure and clean. One-sided use of shame and all its subtle variants is one of government's most powerful instruments of opinion control. Getting back to the village example discussed above, the Puritan settlements of early New England help illustrate both sides of the question. There, privacy was superceded by a complex shame-based social system. And though there were many who were apalled at the way their lives had been entirely subjugated to a powerfully communicated minority view of what was shameful, that same shame had, and has today, an insidious way of keeping people quiet and in their places. This model may be useful to an understanding of privacy. What is to stop anyone from asking, and Cypherpunks deal with this issue every day, what is an appropriate level of privacy? When that question is formed on the basis of "What have you got to hide?" it takes on the aspect of accusation. And yet, that is precisely the question posed by our government as it leads the cheers for the good, right-thinking folk who know that only the guilty, only the criminally insane could ever feel the overwhelming need for absolute privacy. There's a parallel between those Puritan villages that figure so prominently in America's early colonial history and what is happening now as cyberspace is settled. Moderns look back at those times and remark on the amazing ignorance that drove many of the most terrible features of those societies. That ignorance hasn't gone anywhere; it is still with us. They might be hard to spot with the buckles off their hats, but the same people who today want escrowed keys and backdoors into all our lives are the ideological descendents of the Puritan finger-sharpeners. If that's true, then this is a damn good fight. And we can be sure of it whenever we hear: Cypherpunks, shame on you! Brian Beker -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLQo1KyJejrfgN5yJAQGuuAP/Y/sE/KQxNdZ52cKnEVD4AYBsO3cwmmC/ fHS8nwzPj1bxnlx3nVS3b+iWBrk8NLevbBLgPlIMSt2jTL32vjGyX3SYl8FPdfSX R+m+w9fv0lwKkfquW+hIAhrafTDiZfR6pdh0fAVZc3j+1OIWfli7zOICxjTZz+/0 q5Q0L5lYflE= =Rhly -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (3)
-
Brian Beker -
Michael Edward Marotta -
tcmay＠netcom.com