From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 93 01:14:20 PST
To: mercury@well.sf.ca.us (Michael Edward Marotta)
Subject: Re: Privacy as a Commodity
In-Reply-To: <199312110651.WAA23796@well.sf.ca.us>
Message-ID: <199312110910.BAA09858@mail.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> 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.