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-----