From: blanc <blancw@cnw.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 11:37:36 -0800 (PST)
To: "'cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: RE: The Utility of Privacy
Message-ID: <01BBD47B.EC679D60@king1-22.cnw.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	Hal Finney

You suggest that the main motivation which someone might have for protecting privacy is that they are engaged in some illicit activities:

page 45: "Why should I really care if someone sees this?  I have nothing to hide."
.....................................................


This statement from David Brin impressed me with the consistency of a certain way of thinking that some people have:

          "I think that having a minimum standard of living is good, therefore everyone should be coerced to contribute to the general welfare."  On the other hand,  "I myself have nothing to hide, therefore no one should be concerned (read: permitted) to do so."

The issue for them in regard of what everyone should/should not do, is whether anything is logical as far as they themselves can see - and the logic revolves around what they themselves think is right;  the extent of their own vision is considered sufficient to determine the parameters of everyone else's life & actions, and therefore sufficient cause to have their measures imposed over all.

But this letter of Hal's brought up an important point:   that even if a person has nothing to hide, it is not the openness or closedness of information which is of concern, but the *responses of others* to that information.    

When an individual wants to live a free & open life, they expose themselves to dangers.   In order to be free to roam, they must have a way to protect themselve from all manner of destructive influences  -  the weather, predatory animals, vicious strangers, etc.    There must be a way to protect what is one's own in order to preserve it.   If it was easier for everyone to defend themselves against attacks on their person or reputation, maybe there would not be as much concern about privacy.   Perhaps if a person could "get away" from others, could continue to have a normal life without too much disruption, once some exciting bit of info was out in public, if they could maintain command over the effects upon their life despite living in a fishbowl, then no one would worry quite as much (although the principle of personal control over one's property remains the same).   But in the meantime, we have but few ways to protect ourselves under the centralized arrangement for protection (police, defense agencies).   

Anyone in a government position is aware of how their public expressions can result in public outcries against them; the secret agencies protect their information files because of what "the enemy" would *do* if they found out about these - even if the agency itself does not consider its activities immoral.

If Information is like munition, privacy is like defense - it is a form of self defense.

    ..
Blanc