Why are we so obsessed with privacy?

[Greg Bernhardt]

So this issue came up yesterday in a discussion on MPR’s Midmorning and NewsCut Blog about our society’s current concern over privacy rights. One of the commentators noted that human society, from the days we first walked upright until the last century, lived with little to no privacy in day-to-day life. Sure there wasn’t the same kind of access to information like there is now, but pretty much wherever you went, people knew your name, who your family was and many other details that we often look back on with dewey-eyed nostalgia...

More...

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

In general I do agree we are too self conscious as a culture. We go about our days wearing different masks for different people. We carefully choose what we say and how we say it. We craft these elaborate illusions to impress people. The online world is no different. We share different photos with different people. Only show certain details to certain groups. When in reality it's so much less effort and more rewarding to just say "Here I am" and let it go.

But... that doesn't mean you twitter that your boss is an idiot or post photos of yourself in underwear. No one wants to hear or see that.

 

[Evo]

I think part of it is that in the days where social communities were face to face, you didn't fear the unknown as much. Of course when that tall dark stranger road into town, you brought your children inside and the men confronted this potential "danger" to the community until they felt certain he was ok or they ran him out of town. Ok, that's an old TV Western, but you get my point. People have always been more wary of strangers.

When you put your real identity out on the internet, unless you set up some kind of level of privacy, you're inviting all of those scary strangers into your life, and what's worse you don't always know who's looking.

I've made many friends on the internet, I don't mind giving out my true identity to people I've come to trust. I find that many, if not most young adults my daughter's age don't think twice about giving out information about themselves, but at least she has privacy settings up. My impression is that it's more a security issue.

It's an interesting subject. Would you say males are less likely to feel a need for privacy than a female?

 

[arildno]

Very interesting, Greg!

I think that our perceived need for privacy is our basic tribalism asserting itself:
We are made to function optimally in groups of 30-50 individuals, beyond that, we have the "strangers" category.

1. Neighbours are no longer our relatives nor our colleagues.

To some extent this has been made possible by vastly improved systems of communications/transport:

Employees can house themselves within a far larger circle about their place of work, and STILL reach work on time.

Thus, the employee density around a work-place has lessened considerably, and the probability that a neighbour is your colleague you can chat with over the fence has plummeted.

Furthermore, since we have 24-hour open shops where we can get all our commodities, we need not go over to the neighbour and borrow it any longer, in addition to not getting the necessary coffee-chat that traditionally went along with such visits.

Basically, aside from quarreling with the neighbour about that damned tree in his garden, we don't have that much to "legitimately" talk with him about.

Thus, neighbours are much more of strangers for us than they were just a generation ago.

2. Similar observations might be made concerning those who are "just" colleagues, and those who are just "relatives".

For the latter group, the vastly enriched, and changing education field means that the elderly rarely have relevant skills to teach/train the young ones in.

Again, the "utility" of relatives has narrowed, making them "strangers".



3. Amongst all these strangers, the desire to keep some tiny zone of "this is MY tribe, please keep out!" might grow stronger in all of us..

 

[skeptic2]

I think it goes beyond that. We've heard lately about employees who've been fired for what they've posted on Facebook. How much of what we've written online could influence whether we get a job, loan, apartment or admission to a college, rightly or wrongly?

For someone intent on surveillance, the trail we leave on the internet leaves us open to identity theft, blackmail, stalking or just plain harassment.

 

[dacruick]

Very interesting, Greg!

I think that our perceived need for privacy is our basic tribalism asserting itself:
We are made to function optimally in groups of 30-50 individuals, beyond that, we have the "strangers" category.

I agree and disagree with that statement. I think socially we are made to optimally function in that range, but with respect to economics and progression of technology and so forth, the more the better. its the same idea with corporations and franchises. For example pizza places in particular. You have on one side your mom and pops pizza store with one location with possibly better pizza than pizza hut. But because pizza hut has many locations, advertising is more affective because it does not need to be targeted to 5 square miles.(or what i suspect is a delivery zone). Since they are bigger, they bring in more money from other large corporations such as coke and pepsi. Anyways, I'm extremely off topic.

I think that vanity is an increasing trait in modern society and people are afraid to be caught on camera picking their nose or scratching their butt. I personally don't care, take all the pictures of me that you want. I think it is probably a good think in public areas the thwart crime and so on.

 

[DanP]

In the highly civilized world dependency of technology and our self-imposed isolation slowly drags us into a dysfunctional state with symptoms similar to autism. Less and less real social interaction, we communicate more through avatars on internet, than healthy face to face communication. We don't even have to go out to buy the newspaper, TV and internet deliver. We depersonalize ourselves a bit into this virtual world.

We hide, we are afraid what somebody can do with our SSN, IDs, credit card numbers. More and more jobs require only a shadow of physical work.

The perspective looks grim.

 

[turbo]

Some people are obsessed with privacy, but others (often young folks) are very free and loose with personal information. A young lady at my wife's work got fired for using her personal networking page to insult her "imbecile" co-workers, brag about how little work she did, etc. And she made those posts during company time when she was supposed to be working. Obviously, she could have used a lesson or two in discretion, network security, etc. At least some of her on-line "friends" must have ratted her out, prompting the investigation into her work-hours activities.

Another woman that my wife works with has loaded her MySpace page with way too much stuff that could be used to ID her and her family and friends, houses, etc. She's no spring chicken, and has grown kids of her own, but she puts a lot of info out there with little concern for privacy. She captions images with peoples' real names and doesn't bother editing out street addresses, license plates, etc.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Given that identity theft is the fastest growing crime, yes, I am very concerned about privacy. Beyond that, there are plenty of crazies in the world. No sense making oneself a target with an address. There are also other valid concerns. For example, while I may be open with my political views here, I cannot afford to be so in a professional setting. If I knew that any customer could find me on the net, I would not be at liberty to discuss my real views for fear of alienating people and losing business. Politics and business don't mix at all! I have to walk on political eggshells around some folks [extreme right-wingers].

One problem with the internet is that the false sense of privacy motivates people to disclose much more information that they might in any other public setting.

If one wishes to compare life today to the middle-ages, then perhaps privacy issues may seem overblown, but then so might the need for toilet paper. The right to privacy has been a key Constitutional concern for over two-hundred years. This is not a result of the internet or a new idea.

 

[russ_watters]

In general I do agree we are too self conscious as a culture. We go about our days wearing different masks for different people. We carefully choose what we say and how we say it. We craft these elaborate illusions to impress people. The online world is no different. We share different photos with different people. Only show certain details to certain groups. When in reality it's so much less effort and more rewarding to just say "Here I am" and let it go.

But... that doesn't mean you twitter that your boss is an idiot or post photos of yourself in underwear. No one wants to hear or see that.

One of the reasons I use my real name online is I believe privacy online is at best an illusion and at worst a potential shield to hide behind. I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility, accountability and self-awareness and as a result have very little to hide.

 

[Evo]

One of the reasons I use my real name online is I believe privacy online is at best an illusion and at worst a potential shield to hide behind. I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility, accountability and self-awareness and as a result have very little to hide.

That's because you are honest and have nothing to hide.

I have two children that I don't want hunted down because someone has a grievance against me here. I feel for that reason alone I need to keep my real identity hidden except to trusted friends.

 

[turbo]

That's because you are honest and have nothing to hide.

I have two children that I don't want hunted down because someone has a grievance against me here. I feel for that reason alone I need to keep my real identity hidden except to trusted friends.

I have no reason to fear retribution. I have posted links to peer-reviewed research with my my real name. I have also posted images that have allowed a perceptive European member to send me a Christmas card with a VERY vague address that got here with no problem. I don't care about that stuff much. Anybody that takes personal offense to my viewpoints has probably already noted my fondness for my Glock M20 and has moved on to softer targets. I have an Ithaca double-barrel 16-gauge, too, but that's pretty standard for this neighborhood (partridge and rabbits, you know). It's not a good idea for druggies and low-lifes to charge doors in rural Maine.

 

[DanP]

Im not very concerned with online identities. If a person is determined to track somebody down ,starting the work from internet traces , it can be done. It may take time and resources, but it's doable in most of the cases.

I usually use my first name on most on line places. I like my name I use my full name on places where I feel is important for other members to know my identity on spot, with no ambiguity whatsoever. I only have email boxes on my real name.

My concern with online world is that human tend to spend more and more time online. The online community tends to replace direct social interaction. Humans hide under avatars online and socialize with great number of other avatars, but in the real world the number of interactions decreases. They keep private and isolate. Many lose social skills and start to feel uncomfortable in real interactions.

I believe that natural social interaction with other humans which include physical contact cannot be replaced by virtual social interaction.

Anybody that takes personal offense to my viewpoints has probably already noted my fondness for my Glock M20 and has moved on to softer targets. I have an Ithaca double-barrel 16-gauge, too, but that's pretty standard for this neighborhood (partridge and rabbits, you know).

Im pretty fond of weapons too.

 

[DanP]

. There are also other valid concerns. For example, while I may be open with my political views here, I cannot afford to be so in a professional setting. If I knew that any customer could find me on the net, I would not be at liberty to discuss my real views for fear of alienating people and losing business. Politics and business don't mix at all! I have to walk on political eggshells around some folks [extreme right-wingers].

I think this is very wise. Yes, you can lose customers pretty fast getting engaged in political chatter with your clients. You basically signal yourself as a member of a certain group. Naturally some of your clients will become prejudiced. Some will think is better to take their business to your competitors, because they relate better with them. And they'll do this even if you present some small business advantage, such a slightly lower price.

I also agree that extreme right wingers are hardest to deal with. They see the world strictly
as "you are either with us or with "them". (whatever "them" means, only they know. The flavor of the day seems to be the terrorist).

One problem with the internet is that the false sense of privacy motivates people to disclose much more information that they might in any other public setting.

The human behavior is modulated by a lot of social factors. One of them is especially important in online communities IMO: authority (understood both as law enforcement and
as other form of authorities like boss at work, social peer pressure ).

- perception of authority is weakened in large numbers such as online communities
- perception of authority is weakened when you are hiding under a "handle"
- there is no visibility of authority on internet (police is not "here", your annoying boss is not here, you got the idea)
- your own relations with authority is weakened

This prompts humans to do things which they wouldn't do in normal situations. They can be more open with their ideas, they will say things which they wouldn't do normally of the fear
of social repercussions, and they will even break the laws without caring too much. As an example here with law breaking, Ill give you the example of P2P music exchange communities. Most of the members of those communities are humans which would not steal
from a shop , or from their neighbor. Yet they'll freely engage in criminal activities such as P2P exchanges. A important part of the processes leading to this are linked to social forces
linked to authority.

The right to privacy has been a key Constitutional concern for over two-hundred years. This is not a result of the internet or a new idea.

I believe that privacy is important, and the constitution should protect this right of the individual. Legal protection should focus in the first place to serve the individual against the government.

But it is one to have a right protected, it is another thing to seclude yourself into a online life which take precedence over real life. The issue is not so much privacy IMO, but self imposed seclusion off large groups to a virtual world.

 

[DaveC426913]

In ye olden days, you knew who knew you. Today, you have no idea who knows you.

That pedophile currently on the lam in Toronto can know as much about me as my neighbour if I allow it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think it goes beyond that. We've heard lately about employees who've been fired for what they've posted on Facebook. How much of what we've written online could influence whether we get a job, loan, apartment or admission to a college, rightly or wrongly?

For someone intent on surveillance, the trail we leave on the internet leaves us open to identity theft, blackmail, stalking or just plain harassment.

Adding to this

Corporate work places tend to be far less personal. If you do anything wrong at all you could potentially be fired on the spot, no questions asked. I think it was far less likely in the "old days" that people who knew you would be so unkind as to cut ties with you for the slightest reasons. They were just as dependent upon you as you were them. I think that they would have to rationalize a damned good reason to say "Sorry I can't have you around anymore".

The last time I interviewed with a company where they asked me questions related to how I would react to coworkers and subordinates breaking rules I told them that I would talk to the person about it and not necessarily report them. They were not very pleased with my answer. The interviewer, who was otherwise impressed with me, decided to tell me that the rules there were very strict and that if any such thing ever happened while I was working there I would be required to report it immediately.

At the company I worked that was having financial issues and instituted a hiring freeze they stopped firing anyone that they did not absolutely have to. They could not afford to lose employees and have to find new ones. One of my coworkers several times got away with rather gross breeches of policy with nothing but a reprimand.

Its not so much a liability for people to know things about you when they need you as it is when they could easily find any number of others ready and willing to replace you.

 

[sylas]

This is something I've been thinking a bit about recently, and I'll be saying some more about that soon in another thread.

I use a pseudonym online. I don't imagine this gives total protection to my real life identity, but I prefer to have a distinction established between online and offline identities. A number of other folks here seem to be the same. I use the name sylas so consistently now that it feels very natural. It is not the same as anonymity, since I represent a consistent and (mostly ) coherent individual online.

If people care, my real name is available in my blog here, in my biography post. But it won't tell you much. I'm not famous. I am sure anyone who worked at it could get my real name easily enough, and so I have decided it is best to let it be given explicitly but not prominently. It's not a secret, and I am not trying to hide behind a false identity. But I just have a preference for privacy of my personal life and so don't use my real life identify in open public discussions.

Online, people can get ... strange. And so it is as well to be a bit cautious.

I have been interested -- and a bit concerned -- that physicsforums doesn't actually have a privacy policy. There is, of course, the promise not to release private information from the database, like emails. But there's nothing in the guidelines about how we handle posts that release another person's personal information.

I think that would be a useful thing to consider, and develop a suitable policy. I think it is a reasonable courtesy, in the modern internet age, to refrain from hunting up someone's personal details and making them public. You can find out all kinds of information online if you look. That doesn't mean it is appropriate to pull it together and expose it widely. Many folks won't mind, but many others -- me included! -- would prefer that this choice is left up to me. My information is out there if people care and I have no legal basis for such a request; similarly there's no legal requirement for a bulletin board to insist on this. But it is part of the guidelines in many boards, and could perhaps be considered here as well? Just a thought.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I have been interested -- and a bit concerned -- that physicsforums doesn't actually have a privacy policy. There is, of course, the promise not to release private information from the database, like emails. But there's nothing in the guidelines about how we handle posts that release another person's personal information.

Here you go
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=131804

 

[sylas]

Here you go
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=131804

Thanks Greg. Yes, I saw that, and it is an important part of the guarantees any credible board will make about use of information that the board collects.

This policy, however, doesn't have anything at all to say about the expectations we have for members in their own posting of private information. It's only a promise of what physicsforums staff will do.

I should not have said you don't have a privacy policy; what I meant is that there isn't a privacy guideline. Bad wording on my part. That is, there is nothing I can see in the guidelines for members about how they should handle information about other people in their own posts.

For example, a very common explicit guideline on boards is that posts may not contain another person's email address. It is up to other people whether or not they give out their email address on the board, and it shouldn't make any difference whether or not their email address can be found elsewhere online. (Actually, many boards insist you don't post even your own email, because of the situation with robot harvesters.) It is also common to say personal information should not be given out by third parties, such as an address, or names of children or spouse, or workplace, or such things. It would be sensible (IMO) for the guidelines for members to make clear that posts which give out another person's personal details in this way will be deleted.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Aziraphale]

The discussions above about online identities and the workplace were particularly thought provoking. I, myself, am interested to see how society reacts to the amount of information that is now available because it was posted by people when they were kids or teens. You used to be able to count on records of things done while you were a minor/juvenile disappearing after you turned 18, but not anymore. Will our social norms and mores change to account for this? I hardly expect that an entire generation of people will become unemployable because of their Facebook and MySpace pages. If that happens, we'll have much bigger problems on our hands than we thought.

(Full disclosure, I am the author of the original blog entry from virtualnavigator.wordpress.com)

 

[sylas]

The discussions above about online identities and the workplace were particularly thought provoking. I, myself, am interested to see how society reacts to the amount of information that is now available because it was posted by people when they were kids or teens. You used to be able to count on records of things done while you were a minor/juvenile disappearing after you turned 18, but not anymore. Will our social norms and mores change to account for this? I hardly expect that an entire generation of people will become unemployable because of their Facebook and MySpace pages. If that happens, we'll have much bigger problems on our hands than we thought.

(Full disclosure, I am the author of the original blog entry from virtualnavigator.wordpress.com)

Welcome aboard! Your blog and its focus on virtual worlds is quite fascinating.

 

[Borg]

The discussions above about online identities and the workplace were particularly thought provoking. I, myself, am interested to see how society reacts to the amount of information that is now available because it was posted by people when they were kids or teens. You used to be able to count on records of things done while you were a minor/juvenile disappearing after you turned 18, but not anymore. Will our social norms and mores change to account for this? I hardly expect that an entire generation of people will become unemployable because of their Facebook and MySpace pages. If that happens, we'll have much bigger problems on our hands than we thought.

(Full disclosure, I am the author of the original blog entry from virtualnavigator.wordpress.com)

I'm sure that society will adjust as it has before. The defense industry had to adjust its clearance requirements years ago due to the large number of people with past drug use. That type of black mark on your record isn't the career killer that it used to be. BTW, I'm not saying that having a drug felony on your record or current drug use means that you can get cleared.

 

[Borg]

I found this thread while looking for a place to post this.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2010/03/tiny-camera-could-be-future-of-police-work.html" .

While it may be difficult for the police to get used to at first, I think that it will be very beneficial at helping to restore some civility to society. Criminals will have to think twice when they see that they are on camera. It will also help to keep rogue cops from behaving badly as well. Everyone involved is losing some degree of privacy but, it's just the next step in the chain from the cameras that seems to be everywhere like London or the ones that tracked this http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/09/missing.executive/" .

 

[Phrak]

Why are we so obsessed with privacy?

I think it's a pretty easy answer--though not an obsession. People can, and do harm you with what they know of you--but let's not talk about people; let's talk about us.

We harm each other with what we know of each other. Experience teaches us to be careful with what we share about ourselves with others, or suffer the consequences.

 

[DanP]

I found this thread while looking for a place to post this.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2010/03/tiny-camera-could-be-future-of-police-work.html" .

While it may be difficult for the police to get used to at first, I think that it will be very beneficial at helping to restore some civility to society. Criminals will have to think twice when they see that they are on camera. It will also help to keep rogue cops from behaving badly as well. Everyone involved is losing some degree of privacy but, it's just the next step in the chain from the cameras that seems to be everywhere like London or the ones that tracked this http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/09/missing.executive/" .

I prefer to live in a world without governmental surveillance. I don't care whatever or not criminals are deterred by having large scale surveillance implemented. Getting under surveillance is a price which doesn't worth to be payed, even for a *much* safer world.

 

[DanP]

I think it's a pretty easy answer--though not an obsession. People can, and do harm you with what they know of you--but let's not talk about people; let's talk about us.
We harm each other with what we know of each other. Experience teaches us to be careful with what we share about ourselves with others, or suffer the consequences

Unfortunately, a paranoid attitude towards disclosures is detrimental to close social relationships. Close social relations are built on disclosures. So yeah, there is a possibility
that a friend or a lover will hurt you with what they know about you. But really, who cares?
Living in irrational fears and hiding all the time is much worst. You are hurting yourself.

There is a fine balance to be maintained between disclosures , "keeping to yourself", or sharing to the border of stupidity as posting all your credit card details on internet:P

 

[Phrak]

Unfortunately, a paranoid attitude towards disclosures is detrimental to close social relationships. Close social relations are built on disclosures. So yeah, there is a possibility
that a friend or a lover will hurt you with what they know about you. But really, who cares?
Living in irrational fears and hiding all the time is much worst. You are hurting yourself.

There is a fine balance to be maintained between disclosures , "keeping to yourself", or sharing to the border of stupidity as posting all your credit card details on internet:P

You are adhering to false premises. We are not of a mind to withhold information out of paranoiac, but intelligent behavior. We value close social relations, but first, social relations that advance our well being and those we love. When we have the social relationships that provide for our well being, we can afford to advance more candid relationships. In example, we place sustenance over sex; if I am starving I seek food over pleasure and comfort.

---After having read my above reply, I notice that it is not well adapted to children, and I expect gradation through young adult. You have got me thinking a little more deeply about this, and I'll have to poder the gradation over maturity. Have you any thoughts on this?

 

[DanP]

You are adhering to false premises. We are not of a mind to withhold information out of paranoiac, but intelligent behavior.

Intelligent behavior as defined by who ? For most who do that is just irrational fear. They just don't realize it. They have long lost the balance between disclosures and hiding.

 

[DanP]

We value close social relations, but first, social relations that advance our well being and those we love. When we have the social relationships that provide for our well being, we can afford to advance more candid relationships. In example, we place sustenance over sex; if I am starving I seek food over pleasure and comfort.

---After having read my above reply, I notice that it is not well adapted to children, and I expect gradation through young adult. You have got me thinking a little more deeply about this, and I'll have to poder the gradation over maturity. Have you any thoughts on this?

You don't have to separate " the social relationships that provide for our well being" from "we can afford to advance more candid relationships" temporally. You can safely do both, at the same time, and they'll just reinforce one another.

 

[Phrak]

You don't have to separate " the social relationships that provide for our well being" from "we can afford to advance more candid relationships" temporally. You can safely do both, at the same time, and they'll just reinforce one another.

Yes. Absolutely. They are not mutually exclusive.

What do you think of the maturity gradient?

 

[Phrak]

Intelligent behavior as defined by who ? For most who do that is just irrational fear. They just don't realize it. They have long lost the balance between disclosures and hiding.

Wonderful dichotomy. Can you give me two counter examples: one of non-disclosure vs the other of hiding?

 

[DanP]

What do you think of the maturity gradient?

Teenage brains are still very plastic, especially in the areas dealing with impulse control, social control and so on. It represents the very physiological basis and arguments for a "maturity gradient" as you call it.

Look into the research carried on by Dr. Jay Giedd.

 

[DanP]

Can you give me two counter examples: one of non-disclosure vs the other of hiding?

Can you clarify this question a bit ?

 

[DaveC426913]

Wonderful dichotomy. Can you give me two counter examples: one of non-disclosure vs the other of hiding?

Sounds like the diff between passive and active.

Not telling the truth is different from telling a lie. Not volunteering that your used car has a cracked block is different from lying about it when asked directly.

 

[Borg]

Sounds like the diff between passive and active.

Not telling the truth is different from telling a lie. Not volunteering that your used car has a cracked block is different from lying about it when asked directly.

And when you answer a different question, it's called politics.

 

[Proton Soup]

perhaps we found that privacy is preferable? privacy protects us from people that would harass, punish, or take advantage of us. some of our least private years are those we spend in high school, and also the years we suffer the most harassment. people that think others shouldn't expect privacy tend to either be bullies, the most popular, or more probably both. privacy is freedom as far as i am concerned.

 

[joema]

"...MPR’s Midmorning and NewsCut Blog about our society’s current concern over privacy rights. One of the commentators noted that human society, from the days we first walked upright until the last century, lived with little to no privacy in day-to-day life. Sure there wasn’t the same kind of access to information like there is now, but pretty much wherever you went, people knew your name, who your family was and many other details..."

A teenage farm boy in the 1800s could meet his girlfriend behind the haystack and nobody would ever know unless they were physically seen. A factory worker required physical oversight. In general a telephone call or first class letter in 1900 was assumed to be private.

Today, that teenager's real-time GPS location can be tracked by "parental monitoring" software on his cell phone. It can eavesdrop on his face-to-face conversations even if his cell phone is not in use. Under remote control, the mic can listen to sounds, the camera take pictures, and the audio of any incoming/outgoing call can be monitored in real time, without the cell phone owner knowing it. The software for this is widely available, and obviously can be used for non-parental situations: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/cell-phone-spying-software-leads-cyberstalking-nightmare/story?id=10020677

Today every keystroke of workers can be monitored and compared to a database of work output and efficiency. Their phone calls, emails and text messages are monitored and analyzed.

As email replaces paper letters, privacy is potentially lost. Either a family member or a government agency can intercept the email via various methods.

The physical location of anybody with a cell phone can be monitored by law enforcement, without a warrant, and regardless of whether the phone has GPS: http://www.newsweek.com/id/233916

Supposedly every cell phone call and email made by anyone on Earth can be intercepted by NSA satellites and the content evaluated by the Echelon computer network. No wiretap warrant is required for this since computers are doing the work, not people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_(signals_intelligence )

Increasingly sophisticated facial recognition software, coupled with ubiquitous public CCTV cameras allow tracking your movement.

Recent technological developments have made possible monitoring that George Orwell could not dream of when he wrote 1984.

It's misleading to think privacy in earlier eras was minimal, and people today are over-reacting. A farmer from 1800 would likely be horrified at the intrusive, invasive oversight possible today.

 

[brainstorm]

perhaps we found that privacy is preferable? privacy protects us from people that would harass, punish, or take advantage of us. some of our least private years are those we spend in high school, and also the years we suffer the most harassment. people that think others shouldn't expect privacy tend to either be bullies, the most popular, or more probably both. privacy is freedom as far as i am concerned.

I recall a time before the patriot act when there was much ado about wiretapping and listening to phone calls. Wasn't Nixon's impeachment even about the hotel being "bugged?" The funny thing, imo, was that prior to the patriot act, the public discourse regarding privacy rights actually seemed to instill fear of one's right to privacy being violated. Once the government revoked the right, it was like "ok, I guess we don't have anything to worry about or protect anymore because big brother is here and now."

While it is true that privacy can protect against harassment and bullying, it may be less obvious that talk about privacy rights being potentially violated can also be a form of harassment or bullying. As an analogy, think about the psychological effect of having heavily armed police with dogs patrolling an area. It gives the sense that crime is rampant, which can have a chilling effect.

I think the internet has had a positive effect on people as far as fear of public visibility goes. If you would have told me ten or twenty years ago that I could post something on the "world wide web" that could be read by anyone anywhere, it probably would have given me stage-fright. I guess I would still be uncomfortable with being on youtube, but it's somewhat comforting knowing that so many people have their say online.

Still, I do avoid posting with my legal name to avoid the possibility that some crazy person decides to stalk me. Now where would I get the idea that anyone would ever do such a thing? Media perhaps?

 

[turbo]

In general a telephone call or first class letter in 1900 was assumed to be private.

Not at all true, sorry. Until 1970 in my home town, we had magneto-driven crank telephones and the operators in the next town ran the switchboard. They would neglect to jack out after connecting people with the party they called, and listen in on the conversations. One operator in particular seemed quite fascinated with conversations between my girlfriend and me, and when she was on-shift, she always tried to eavesdrop. She was very adept at jacking out and jacking back in really fast so that it sounded like one click instead of two if you weren't paying close attention. When she did that, my girlfriend and I started talking about her by name, using VERY insulting language. Then, we'd hear a single "click".

 

[Max Faust]

I think our more or less accentuated desire for "privacy" has very deep roots.

Essentially, I believe that it is an elaboration of a root instinct which follows from the human being's propensity for being a predator ape - and all predators seek towards stealth in a variety of ways, including that of wanting to hide your excrements. In other words: Feeling iffy about being "watched" is a matter of natural predator instincts.

 

[brainstorm]

I think our more or less accentuated desire for "privacy" has very deep roots.

Essentially, I believe that it is an elaboration of a root instinct which follows from the human being's propensity for being a predator ape - and all predators seek towards stealth in a variety of ways, including that of wanting to hide your excrements. In other words: Feeling iffy about being "watched" is a matter of natural predator instincts.

Maybe, but at some point humans develop power and desire to be able to traverse and act freely in public without spies hiding in the shadows around every corner. Hence laws and rights were conceived and institutionalized like public trials with explicit charges and due process, right to free public speech, right to be free of persecution, right not to be enslaved, etc. etc.

Enforcement of these rights require intolerance for their being disregarded in private. This is actually part of what led to the US civil war. Slavery became a private right of individual states on the basis of popular sovereignty (Kansas-Nebraska act) and Lincoln and other republicans decided not to tolerate privatizing states' rights to expand the practice of slavery.

I think freedom from persecution and harassment is more important than privacy. Privacy only protects people to the extent that they keep things secret. Without any checks and balances on how people can treat each other in public, privacy becomes little more than a consolation prize for public oppression.

 

[Count Iblis]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7915369.stm"

 

[joema]

Not at all true, sorry. Until 1970 in my home town, we had magneto-driven crank telephones and the operators in the next town ran the switchboard. They would neglect to jack out after connecting people with the party they called, and listen in on the conversations...

It's true casual eavesdropping on phone calls was common. I myself have lived in a house with a party line (most younger people don't know what that is). The practice was even depicted on various popular magazine covers: http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2009/08/15/art-literature/artists-illustrators/listentothis.html

However your *relative* privacy was still ensured by the volume of calls, coupled with the purely manual means of eavesdropping. Even if nosey, a single operator could only eavesdrop on a small fraction of the calls.

By contrast today's communications are subject to massive, indiscriminate interception. Some observers believe every word of every phone, fax and email message is intercepted and analyzed for content, regardless of whether the origin address is on a watch list: http://mediafilter.org/caq/echelon/

In addition to government monitoring, today a parent or suspicious spouse can surreptitiously bug a cellphone using monitoring software. Even if the target phone isn't activated, every sound in the vicinity is relayed to the person monitoring, along with real-time location. There's a good argument we have less privacy today than people in earlier eras.

 

[Proton Soup]

I think our more or less accentuated desire for "privacy" has very deep roots.

Essentially, I believe that it is an elaboration of a root instinct which follows from the human being's propensity for being a predator ape - and all predators seek towards stealth in a variety of ways, including that of wanting to hide your excrements. In other words: Feeling iffy about being "watched" is a matter of natural predator instincts.

that's an interesting thought. so people who place less value on privacy might be expected to be less like predators and more like prey. perhaps the privacy averse would be more likely to exhibit prey traits like herding, and make lots of noise and commotion when they sense a predator in the vicinity, so as to warn the others.

 

[Max Faust]

exhibit prey traits like herding, and make lots of noise and commotion when they sense a predator in the vicinity

I believe so, yes.

Herd behaviour would include such things as an instinctual drive towards "the middle ground", i.e. safety in numbers by virtue of *averaging* your position within a moving mass, so as to not position yourself with vulnerability, and also making lots of commotion and displaying "upset" behaviour (like monkeys in a treetop) when you spot a perceived danger (such as a leopard underneath). But these are of course only metaphors.

Oswald Spengler waxed a bit on this in his "Untergang des Abendlandes" - and it's hard to not say he's right when you consider humanity's consistent denial of the consequences of the exponential function; applied to population growth, pollution, etc. - but anyway, the point in this context is how predatorial animals feel uncomfortable when being "watched" (because it constitutes a threat that they know very well, since the act of fixating a prey animal with your eyes is what predators do).

 

[Proton Soup]

i like metaphors. they're like little privacy fences obscuring my thoughts.

 

[DaveC426913]

i like metaphors. they're like little privacy fences obscuring my thoughts.

No, they are little fences obscuring your thoughts. If they were like little fences obscuring your thoughts, they'd be similes.

 

[brainstorm]

Herd behaviour would include such things as an instinctual drive towards "the middle ground", i.e. safety in numbers by virtue of *averaging* your position within a moving mass, so as to not position yourself with vulnerability, and also making lots of commotion and displaying "upset" behaviour (like monkeys in a treetop) when you spot a perceived danger (such as a leopard underneath). But these are of course only metaphors.

Excellent summation of reactionary behavior among humans. I don't think it's a metaphor because, after all, humans ARE animals - primates specifically. These behaviors are described in sufficiently general terms to apply to both humans and other animals. Top-quality social science, imo!

 

[Max Faust]

Top-quality social science, imo!

What worries me isn't as much our status as stupid animals - which is obvious - but our propensity for confusing our *image* of reality with reality itself. This may very well be an evolutionary shortcoming of the whole "brain" experiment.

 

[DanP]

What worries me isn't as much our status as stupid animals

Well, if you feel like one, you are one.