Ask HN: Why is privacy something we should strive for?

If you think privacy is useless, please reply to this comment by posting:

- Your name, address, phone number

- Your place of employment, income from all sources, net worth and valuation of your major assets (house, car, investments, etc.)

- All your social media accounts (please make sure that all information you've ever posted there is publicly accessible)

- Your credit card numbers, bank account numbers, social security number

- A list of political candidates you voted for or contributed money to

- Your religious background and current beliefs (if any)

- The names of all your friends, relatives and children

- Your health history, including any psychiatric problems you've ever suffered from

- A list of all illegal drugs you've ever tried (or other illegal acts you may have committed)

- Your sexual orientation, sexual preferences and a list of all your sexual partners

- Any other personal information you'd like to share with us

Classic reply.

I wish I could be open about all these things. I really do. Unfortunately, society currently expects us to keep some information private. A lot of things, such as private-key cryptography, actually rely on this very secrecy.

Privacy sustains an intolerance that prohibits me from sharing this information publicly. This is the precise reason why I think we should get away from privacy.

There's few things I want more than being able to be 100% honest with myself and others, and never have to tell another lie, but this won't be possible as long as we value privacy so much.

"Privacy sustains an intolerance that prohibits me from sharing this information publicly."

My desire for privacy in no way affects your actions. You are free to reply to my questions at any time. In fact, many people share all sorts of personal information about themselves on their blogs and here on HN.

"There's few things I want more than being able to be 100% honest with myself and others, and never have to tell another lie..."

There's a difference between telling lies and not making personal information about yourself public. In all my postings on HN, I've never told a lie, but you wouldn't know much personal information about me other than my approximate age and city of residence.

You may think that privacy is the "bottleneck of social progress". However, people like me, who prefer to live our lives free from public scrutiny and judgement (not to mention government surveillance), don't wish for the same things you do. The prospect of living in a world where people who don't have Facebook and LinkedIn accounts are considered suspicious and unemployable is not appealing to me.

Privacy is hard to quantify from a good/bad perspective because it relates to personal preference. One person might demand it, while another person might not care at all. Because of this, I don't see the issue as cut-and-dry as being good or bad. As a Community that builds Products, I think it is much more constructive to understand that the issue is broad in nature, and your customers likely have opposing views (or may not care at all). I think the real question should be; When building a Product, what are the ethical implications of User Privacy? If one believes that they should be in-tune with their customers (which is what I believe) then the best approach is probably to respect both sides of the issue. So in other words, instead of deciding what is "right", build the Product to support both extremes. When you give the User a choice, it is much more well received than making the choice for them. Most issues I've read about, heard about, or experienced myself resulted from a lack of understanding or respect for the User's choice.

One very important benefit of privacy is it allows experimentation without commitment: because we live in a society that often rushes to label, pigeon-hole, and categorize, privacy allows one to experiment with activities, world views, preferences, without broadcasting the process to the entire world.

Sounds like you're describing an issue about society, not transparency.

As long as we keep in mind that "label[s], pigeon-hole[s], and categori[es]" don't have to be permanent, and that people usually change as they learn, I don't see a problem with them.

You can't really draw a line between "experimentation" and "commitment", as commitments usually become experimentations in hindsight. Unless we live all our lives in private, and only went in public when we were 100% sure that our positions about everything would never change (and that we're happy with them), I don't see this working very well.

Sure, we all make a lot of mistakes when starting something new, but this is not a reason to do these things in private. Not only does it probably slow down the learning process, but it also increase other people's expectations. If we no longer see people making mistakes, we'll start believing that mistakes are bad. If we have to hide whenever we do something new (as encourage by the privacy movement), we'll probably just stop experimenting new things.

I think you are not considering that the range of privacy can be larger than complete isolation.

I think that can be answered quite briefly: Malicious people exist and they can use things we consider private against you. We are inherently imperfect and thus we define a protected space in which we can can happily be imperfect without spending energy on worrying about it.

> Malicious people exist

Is it malicious to expose the truth? Who is to blame if others react badly to the truth? The "malicious" person or the ones that react negatively?

> things we consider private

Why do we consider anything to be private? Where do you draw the line? Do others need my permission to collect any information that relates to me? Why do we assume we have some exclusive right over any information?

> We are inherently imperfect

We all have positive and negative qualities. This is what makes us different from one another. How am I going to judge people if I can't know anything about them? Why do we limit this "privacy" to negative qualities, but tolerate that people with extraordinary qualities share them with the world? If the quest for equality is the reason behind allowing people a right to conceal imperfections, why don't we also stop people from bragging about their qualities?

> we define a protected space in which we can can happily be imperfect without spending energy on worrying about it.

This lead to a society that is used to see only the "good" side of people, but not their negative side. Not only does it skew perception of reality, but it increase standards and make it even harder to be yourself (including all your imperfections) when you're outside the "protected space". It seems to be like this would only lead to isolation, increased social pressure, more superficial conformism. At some point, letting a secret slip could literally ruin your life. This bubble will lead to nothing but more intolerance.

Would you find it silly if a group of people actively tried to build systems and tools to help homosexual people to stay in the closet? Because that's exactly how I see the fight for privacy.

1. Truth can be misued for misguidance and I think it's easier to allow for a private space than to achieve a society that is not prone to misguidance.

2. Without going too much into the details I would personally prefer spatial declarations of private space. For example the space that is occupied by your home and the space that is constituted by a sphere that encloses your body. Ideally everyone should have the possibility to consciously decide which information leaves this space.

3. I think you misinterpret what I said. It's only about declaring a space in which you don't have to think too hard about the (wider) social implications of your actions and thoughts. It's more about protection than about equality.

4. Well, you are still free to reveal yourself within a confined or even public space (in person, using an avatar or anonymously). I could imgine too that this will amplify the endeavor for individual perfection (which is an inherently human trait I believe) but it seems to outweigh the downside of having to potentially explain all your actions and thoughts, or to achieve a society that is able to handle that.

1. When information is scarce, people are more prone to misguidance. In a world where there's no privacy, misguidance is much easier to spot and invalidate. This is when you don't know much about something that truth gets fuzzy and can take any turn.

2. What if you're loud and I can hear you when you're inside your "private space"? What if my camera captures you in your "bubble"? Can I get into trouble for capturing any information? Will I be able to use my Google Glasses in public (public hopefully being everywhere)?

3. No such space should exist. Your thoughts and actions should always have social implications. Why shouldn't natural rules apply everywhere equally?

4. I don't wish to manually control all this information myself. I don't want to worry about what's private, what's public, avatars, pseudonyms, etc.

Actually, I wish others would track my every thoughts and moves so that I could stop wasting my time manually inputting all this information in systems and such. But this is only possible through complete transparency.

1. That is not true because even if every bit of information is made inherently public it does not mean that the information is not prone to manipulation.

2. Well, there should be laws that enforce that the privacy stuff is included in every product. Windows and walls will work with noise cancelling and act as a Faraday cage. Windows will also need to have mirrors on the outside.

3. That's why I wrote 'wider' in parens. Of course one would be able to widen the privacy sphere, i.e. you'll still be able to join gatherings in a completely natural way.

4. Again, I didn't say that you shouldn't be able to reveal yourself. If you want to share all your relevant thoughts and actions with your coworkers you are free to do so. I think with a slick user interface (e.g. a brain implant) and various automatic/self-adapting filters that could work quite unobtrusively, so I don't think your usability objections are particulary strong arguments.

One reason is that exposing some forms of personal information can lead to discrimination. For instance, access to private medical records or to genetic information may allow insurance companies to discriminate against people they believe might be predisposed to certain health risks.

Additionally, there is a reason why people don't like revealing things about themselves (like their salaries, for example): it opens them up to judgment and allows society to comment on how they rank hierarchically within a certain community.

Privacy allows us to feel comfortable revealing only the information we think won't detriment us in the eyes of others, especially because this can have significant tangible effects on our lives.

> One reason is that exposing some forms of personal information can lead to discrimination

Prejudice, which is central to discrimination, is usually a consequence of limited information. The less you know, the easier it is to generalize. When you know everything, "discrimination" becomes facts.

> For instance, access to private medical records or to genetic information may allow insurance companies to discriminate against people they believe might be predisposed to certain health risks.

Rightly so. Likewise, healthy people could have better rates.

> Additionally, there is a reason why people don't like revealing things about themselves (like their salaries, for example): it opens them up to judgment and allows society to comment on how they rank hierarchically within a certain community.

Again, how is that a problem? Do you have a plan to help poor people afford nice clothes and nice cars so that they can look as rich as their boss?

> Privacy allows us to feel comfortable revealing only the information we think won't detriment us in the eyes of others, especially because this can have significant tangible effects on our lives.

I don't want my employers to know my GPA. I don't want banks to know my credit score. I don't want the government to know I went to jail. Yet, these are not things we can hide, even if they "have significant tangible effects on our lives".

If the objective is equality, hiding negative qualities won't cut it. You'll have to prevent people from showing their positive qualities too.

Here is the best explanation I have seen of the issue: http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127...

The tl;dr is that arguments against privacy generally focus on not having anything to hide if you aren't doing anything wrong. In reality, it's a lot more complicated. Loss of privacy can cause a great deal of harm even when you haven't done anything wrong.

I've read this before.

Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of things to hide. But the only reason I have to hide them is becaues society expects me to do so.

In a more transparent society, people would be much more tolerant.

Now I just think you're trolling. There isn't any taboo against sharing personal information, but there are consequences.

A truly tolerant society doesn't care what people are doing in private. The only reason to go to the trouble of collecting and analyzing private data is if you intend to do something with that data. The reason people care about privacy is that your agenda is not the same as mine.

I feel that you're blaming society for the need of privacy. I don't know if I understand you perfectly, but if I do, the need of privacy has indeed no inherent value. But that doesn't mean it isn't important. Privacy needs to exist, at least for now, exactly because our society is not perfect. The same stands for legislation, for instance. I'm sorry if I'm not making much sense here, but that's how I see it.

It's about the freedom to think and communicate. If all your thoughts were tweeted and all your conversations were publicly blogged, wouldn't that degrade your freedom? Or if in every conversation, someone told you they would send a report to the gov't capturing what was discussed, would you end up having the same conversation?

Privacy makes some people feel more comfortable. There doesn't need to be anything more to it than that.

There might still be situations where their privacy has to be balanced against some other consideration, but it's unlikely that a universal denial of privacy would be necessary to find the balance.

A lot of things make people "feel more comfortable". Yet, you probably don't think all these things should be encouraged or become rights.

You also have to consider all the negative sides of privacy. All the lost potential. I'm actually convinced that privacy cause much more harm than good.

How do you feel about the fact that your privacy cause me discomfort?

I suppose I don't really care. I consider but it's unlikely that a universal denial of privacy would be necessary to find the balance to be the core of what I was thinking. I'm sure there are some situations where privacy does harm, but I'm at least as equally sure that there are some situations where it doesn't matter (in those situations the preferences of the individual should take precedence). There's probably even situations where everybody is better off with privacy being maintained.