If there is one really hot button topic when it comes to the Web it has to be the whole idea of privacy. From Scott McNealy to Eric Schmidt of Google to the newest statement about privacy from Mark Zuckerberg the founder of Facebook we are being told that our abnormal concern about privacy is outmoded and stupid.
In the case of both Schmidt and Zuckerberg there is no denying that they both have ulterior reasons for wanting to get us all to be as open on the Web as possible. After all their businesses rely exclusively on us being willing to share anything and everything about ourselves on the Web.
It is equally unsurprising that there is a whole bunch of people who don’t agree with them, nor do they approve with the methods that companies like Google and Facebook will go to in order to get us to reconsider what our boundaries of privacy are. In fact some are vehemently opposed to the constant pushing of the privacy envelope that these companies will go to.
The only problem is that none of this arguing has anything to do with what real privacy is. In fact all this does is show us just how screwed up our concept of privacy is. Don’t get me wrong I am extremely bothered with the way that these companies do end up collecting and sharing the information that we give them but none of this has to do with what privacy is.
First let’s take a look at a couple of different definitions of what privacy is courtesy of Dictionary.com
Standard definition
1. the state of being private; retirement or seclusion.
2. the state of being free from intrusion or disturbance in one’s private life or affairs: the right to privacy.Legal definition
Function: noun
: freedom from unauthorized intrusion : state of being let alone and able to keep certain esp. personal matters to oneself —see alsoEXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, INVASION OF PRIVACY privacy interestat INTEREST 3b, RIGHT OF PRIVACY Griswold v. Connecticut andRoe v. Wade in the IMPORTANT CASES section
Now let’s take a look at some real life experiences where we might have some sort of expectation of real privacy
making love with your partner
a private conversation with another person who you trust in a room with no other occupants and where you have told that other person that this is a private conversation.
the time spent with your doctor talking about your health, or a with a psychiatrist talking about your mental well-being, or a priest (or other secular person) where you are talking about the things troubling your soul
anything that happens within the confines of your home.
There are plenty more examples like those but using those examples how can we expect our personal sense of privacy to be violated
when that person you have explicitly told that the conversation was private between the two of you at some later point decides to break that bond of privacy and share it with even one other person
when the doctor shares what transpired in your meeting with anyone including their spouse, or the psychiatrists shares you information as part of a paper being publish – even if they don’t use your name.
Privacy is an incredibly nebulous concept that philosophers have contemplated for centuries and the framers of our laws have debated for almost as long as there has been governments. However there are some areas where we might think we have some expectation of our concept of privacy when in fact we really don’t.
a conversation in a public place regardless of how low we might keep our voices
our romping in the hay with a hooker or even a mistress
the Internet
Yes the Internet. It is one thing to use your computer in the privacy of your home and for the most part what you do on that machine within those confines should be considered as being private. However the moment you log on to the public Internet that perception needs to change.
The Internet is not your private domain and no matter how much you might like to think so it isn’t. It is a public place where you can travel to place after place, page after page but in the end it is all public. Every word you read is out there for public consumption. Even membership only sites are still just another form of public conversation.
Privacy is a personal construct that we create for ourselves. It is the borders around which we decide what we say where, who we talk to and how much we tell them. Privacy as is commonly referred to on the public Web isn’t privacy in the proper sense of the word but rather what we as individuals feel safe in sharing.
Facebook, Google or Twitter can’t force us to share what we don’t want to share. The only thing they can do is radically blur the lines of who can see what. Facebook was built on a simple premise of letting the user dictate who could see what there by giving an illusion of their version of privacy which we accepted hook, line and sinker. Where they have failed as a company is that they haven’t help up their part of the bargain with the original users.
However with each successive wave of new users there isn’t the same agreement as they have constantly, and will continue to blur the lines of their agreements with the users.
The problem isn’t about a lack of privacy because that is always within our own control. The problem is that the companies in an ever increasing need to make more money are changing their agreements with us. They are taking away our ability to control how we want to share our information.
This isn’t an argument about loss of privacy but one of loss of control. While it might make for nicer headlines the fact is we still have control over our privacy and it is only us that can move that bar. However the more important issue here is the erosion of our control by companies that need to control everything we do on the Web.
So let’s stop chasing this red herring and deal with the real issue – regaining control over our online lives.
