Slashdot

Inspired by this discussion, I did a little thinking on the subject of privacy, crime, and having nothing to hide. I didn't really want to post this in the main discussion because, more than likely, I'd be modded a troll, and it'd look extremely self-indulgent. But hey, that's what journals are for, right?

I thought the best place to begin would be the "I have nothing to hide, so I have nothing to fear" argument. It's core meaning essentially rings true: our fear of the lack of privacy stems from having sensitive information that we want to conceal from others. That truth makes the statement itself very hard to refute. It's much easier to counter the implication that nobody should have their secrets, or even that the person itself has no secrets of his own.

For the purposes of discussion, we'll separate sensitive information into three categories:

1. Embarrassing personal information (e.g. pictures of them naked)
2. Sensitive information that can be used to facilitate illegal activity against the person (e.g. credit cards, financial statements, etc)
3. Sensitive information about illegal activities that the person has participated in

The "I have nothing to hide" usually covers the third category, and is stated under the rational that people who break our laws do not deserve the protection that privacy affords, at least in the context of their illegal activity. The other two categories aren't covered under that rationale, even though the argument covers all sensitive information. Therefore the argument, in its simplest form, can be derailed by launching an ad hominem attack against the person and citing information from the other two categories that they are implying they wouldn't mind sharing.

Still, despite the situation, I think it would be rather convenient, in terms of law enforcement, to make information of the third category public. The problem is, there is no remotely effective way to filter out information based on those categories, and worse still, by the time the information is collected and ready to be sorted, the privacy of the person has already been invaded. It's a natural limitation of data collection that can't easily be solved. The closest thing we have to a solution is using a computer to store and sort the information, but with AI the way it is, there is absolutely no guarantee that the information will be sorted correctly. In all likelihood, massive amounts of otherwise private information from the other two categories would be handed to officials and viewed with sentient intelligence.

The other option would be to change society, and take away the disincentives for keeping the information private, if possible. Information of the first category is embarrassing to the person when let into the public because, in public, that sort of information is taboo. It is the expectations of others that you keep certain parts of your life secret, and vice versa. Many of these taboos are reflected in law. For example, you aren't allowed to be naked or engage in overtly sexual behaviour in public (in many countries), even though it is perfectly acceptable in private and perfectly natural human behaviour. We have been conditioned to believe that such behaviour should be private, and when it fails to stay private, we feel embarrassed. It's not just any taboo that leads to privacy awareness, but specifically ones that specify that the behaviour is only acceptable in private. It is these taboos that form the barrier between private and public life, and once that barrier is torn down, privacy no longer is desirable.

Even with the merging of public and private life, there's still the problem of category two. Even if we don't fear the publicising of our life, we still need (as a matter of practicality) to keep some information private, lest they be abused in harmful ways. I doubt that even the most open people would give away their credit card details, or extend an open invitation for the public to view the inside of their home while they themselves are away, or share their child's daily routine with a paedophile, etc. These are all examples where privacy affords personal protection, and giving up that privacy results in giving up much of your security.

The common factor between them is that they all go a long way to preventing illegal activity. Privacy helps fill the gaps and limitations in public law enforcement. The only way to remove the incentive to keep category two information private is to remove crime. You can do that by instituting total surveillance (which, if you remember, was our goal to begin with). If people can't get away with a crime, it wouldn't matter how much privacy others had, you would be punished if you tried anything.

So there you have it: a society without privacy. The people are happy, because they no longer care if their life is displayed for everyone to see, and they feel secure because practically nobody (not even people in power) can get away with a crime. Taboos are gone, so people do whatever they want (within the law) whenever they want. It'd be extremely expensive (as total surveillance always is), and breaking down such deeply laid taboos is nigh impossible, but I believe that a society built from the ground up from people without taboos could work.

Personally though, I wouldn't want to live there. Taboos bring a cultural richness to our society. We have the law as a basic moral standard, and taboos are used to create individual moral codes and individual value systems that lend diversity to our society. We have to endure crime, but crime is far from unmanageable and an acceptable price to pay for individualism. I'm sure you all agree.

All IMHO, of course.