The Birth and Death of Privacy

Aside from the rather obvious issues of accuracy in the related anecdotes (as coldtea pointed out), it's a shame that the author of this piece doesn't mention one aspect in which the rise-and-fall nature is not a full circle: although in a tribal society you may have less privacy, there is also less reason to fear a lack of it.

Unlike small, homogeneous groups with intimate hierarchies, modern society is huge, the data available on your life is enormous, and the ability of someone to hurt you with that data (be it through impersonation or accusation) or indeed you to hurt someone else is virtually unlimited. There's no discussion of the ways in which the potential consequences of the violation of privacy make us more protective of it ("The Lives of Others" is a great film on the subject).

Maybe at some point we can achieve a society where the power structures and human relationships are such that we can again be as open again with strangers as we once were with our immediate families/communities, and in so doing relax about the need for strict rights of privacy. But right now the stakes are too high.

The "silent reading / not popular" thing is an urban legend, and has been refuted in established scholarly research. It's not even true in the famous example about St. Augustine's teacher.

Not sure about it but "beds used to be extraordinarily expensive" seems BS too. A bed is just some pieces of wood -- very easily made for families near nature/woods (as was the vast majority of the population at the time they mention).

The reason families often shared just 1 or 2 beds is because they lived in a much confined small house, not the cost of building a bed.

It is not uncommon in European culture room to have mixed public saunas where people are naked. Human bodies are regarded as natural and there is nothing erotic or humiliating in such situation. Everyone minds their own business.

Also when I browse the web or I walk on the street, I am visible. If I enter the shop or web page, the owner of it will take a notice. I think it is all natural.

The situation changes when an interested third party appears who shows up keen interests about my doings. Follows me every corner, marks down at what I look, or what I buy, even follows me into public sauna with an intent to take pictures of me when I am naked and all of this with a sole interest to take advantage of me in every way possible. This is not natural, this is perverse.

This is where a normal person says: leave me alone, please respect my privacy.

The word privacy is complex and might have grown to have too many meanings. There's privacy like not wanting people to see you naked, having sex or using the bathroom. Then there's privacy like not sharing a living space with several other people. Then there's privacy like online tracking and keeping certain information from being public or easily discoverable.

People seem to use those concepts interchangeably, which only clouds the issue. Someone from a small town might not mind sharing a living space, but object to online tracking. Or someone could say "I have nothing to hide" in regard to their daily communications, but still not want their showers to be broadcast. Or an exhibitionist could have no problem with public showering, but draw the line at sharing a bedroom with two other people.

So when people say that privacy is dying, which kind of privacy do they mean? "All of the above" is a valid answer, but the situation is probably more nuanced. This particular post provides an interesting view, but still lumps a lot of concepts together.

Let's put it another way. It's not really the death of privacy. It's the appreciation of personal information.

A long time ago you could, if you had the means to, get an individual's life totally mapped out and that had some value. But today you can map an individual's life and then connect the dots between that individual's personal data and that of the people they interact with and build a social graph. And that is infinitely more valuable.

Now that Google and Facebook can earn up to $50 per head, they are really motivated to eradicate online privacy.

If you wanted to and if you could afford it, you could maintain your privacy. It would just cost exponential more than it would have cost just a few decades ago.

I think that in the context of a discussion around a subject of evolution of privacy, it is important to remember where privacy originates. The privacy is not an invention of human civilisation but rather the principle expression of fundamental operation of self. Humans as probably is true for many other creatures in animal kingdom poses an inherent harbour of privacy within our minds. We are able to operate in as much privacy as we choose. The information revolution, however far into the past the development of our civilisation you choose to accept it spans, continues to expand our knowledge outwards into scriptures, books and recently the Internet and beyond. We should choose wisely whether to limit the plane to which we can comfortably, seamlessly and yes privately extend the operation of self - our minds. I would hate to find myself being only able to "think" privately inside my own skull. I think I would be less.

Yes, given the prospects of even that fundamental barrier being breachable the more important it is for the concept of privacy to be understood and widely accepted.

The only universal reason to limit privacy is that of control (whatever the motivation for such control).

"More advanced health monitors used by insurers are coming, like embedded sensors in skin and clothes that detect stress and concentration. The markers of an early heart attack or dementia will be the same that correspond to an argument with a spouse or if an employee is dozing off at work. No behavior will escape categorization—which will give us unprecedented superpowers to extend healthy life. Opting out of this tracking—if it is even possible—will mean an early death and extremely pricey health insurance for many."

The health aspects are a long way off. Maybe when they get to the point where they can predict a heart attact--I'm game for anything the wiz kids tell me to strip on, or swallow.

Until that day, I want my privacy.

I want to be able to control what sites, like Google does with my information--yea, I know it's not going to happen.

In the mean time, I can opt out of certain sites that brag about the information they own about you, like Facebook.

Right now people don't seem to care about privacy, but that will change. It probally won't change in certain countries, but I see a change, a small one, in the United States.

Will there ever be a relationship of Mutually Assured Destruction between people when it comes to abusing one anothers' privacy. i.e. if person A abuses the use of information about individual B, then person A has the immediate knowledge of that and ability to do the same or worse to individual B.

Therefore the temptation to manipulate or abuse private information of another party will be limited against by the knowledge that retaliation is assured and disproportionate.

This could work on a person-to-person level, i.e. if i use an individuals private image for public or private purposes without consent, and it could be used on a person-to-institution level, i.e. if an institution sells an individuals health records without consent.

Perhaps an answer to the eternal problem of privacy is that if all private information is open and accessible we will all be so terrified of the retaliation that we will not abuse others private information. (although i realise the hypocrisy of calling anything private if everyone has access to it).

The silent reading comment is very interesting. I'm currently reading Augustine's Confessions, and it's quite interesting. Augustine makes very modern observations of a very ancient society. For example, when he first describes Ambrose of Milan he finds it remarkable that Ambrose reads silently rather than out loud. It seems like the norm in ancient Rome was to read out loud, even in private.

Some confused people accuse young Abe Lincoln of being homo because he shared a bed with a male housemate in his 20s. That was right around the era where solo beds were becoming a norm instead of a luxury. Before the industrial age it was pretty common for a whole family just to have one or two beds- parents and childrens. And if you stayed at a hotel or army barracks you shared a bed rack with a row of strangers.

*The Birth and Death of Privacy in the Western World: 3,000 Years of History Told Through 46 Images

Nothing about toilet privacy which also was technologically induced not innate.

I thought it was Aurelius Ambrosius aka Saint Ambrose who invented silent reading around 350 CE.