The Eternal Value of Privacy (2006)(schneier.com)
schneier.com
The Eternal Value of Privacy (2006)
https://www.schneier.com/essay-114.html
2 comments
This essay is garbage.
The argument "I don't do anything wrong, therefore I have nothing to hide" is extremely weak. The argument for "national security" is even worse.
I'm not proud of everything I did, and there's probably some information out there that would allow someone to arrest or blackmail me. That said, I don't consider privacy a right and I don't believe we should pursue it. Sure, privacy might be necessary in the short term, but once we get rid of the real issue, privacy loses all value. The value of privacy is not eternal, and it certainly is not intrinsic.
Publicity never was the problem. The problem comes from elsewhere. The problem comes from us.
What do you think happens when a society surrenders most of its freedom and power to a state? The government is not unlike us. It wants to survive, it grows, and it gets greedy. Then, all it needs is more power, in order to keep surviving. Where does this power comes from? Information.
Information is a form of power, and power makes anything more effective. In this case, it's the government, which no longer exists to serve us but only to survive. A huge part of survival is about eleminating the threats, which is done easily when you know everything about them.
Here comes privacy. As long as we worship this beast, we will rely on privacy to protect us, slow them down. But privacy is not a solution. It only gives us more time. Should we spend this time fight for privacy, or should we spend it to fight the government? I think the second option is the only real one.
Once we get rid of this beast, once it's dead. Will we keep seeking privacy? Will we realize that communication is extremely valuable and necessary for growth? Will we leave the hypocrisy that privacy allowed? Will we accept who we are?
We hide because we are afraid. As long as the threat lives, fear will remain. And the beast feeds off of fear.
By focusing on hiding, we forget about the actual problem. And it keeps growing.
The argument "I don't do anything wrong, therefore I have nothing to hide" is extremely weak. The argument for "national security" is even worse.
I'm not proud of everything I did, and there's probably some information out there that would allow someone to arrest or blackmail me. That said, I don't consider privacy a right and I don't believe we should pursue it. Sure, privacy might be necessary in the short term, but once we get rid of the real issue, privacy loses all value. The value of privacy is not eternal, and it certainly is not intrinsic.
Publicity never was the problem. The problem comes from elsewhere. The problem comes from us.
What do you think happens when a society surrenders most of its freedom and power to a state? The government is not unlike us. It wants to survive, it grows, and it gets greedy. Then, all it needs is more power, in order to keep surviving. Where does this power comes from? Information.
Information is a form of power, and power makes anything more effective. In this case, it's the government, which no longer exists to serve us but only to survive. A huge part of survival is about eleminating the threats, which is done easily when you know everything about them.
Here comes privacy. As long as we worship this beast, we will rely on privacy to protect us, slow them down. But privacy is not a solution. It only gives us more time. Should we spend this time fight for privacy, or should we spend it to fight the government? I think the second option is the only real one.
Once we get rid of this beast, once it's dead. Will we keep seeking privacy? Will we realize that communication is extremely valuable and necessary for growth? Will we leave the hypocrisy that privacy allowed? Will we accept who we are?
We hide because we are afraid. As long as the threat lives, fear will remain. And the beast feeds off of fear.
By focusing on hiding, we forget about the actual problem. And it keeps growing.
I read some comments from you and I keep asking myself: What is your alternative?
Corporations also want our personal data. Maybe do you imply "no government, no corporations"?
Even in this scenario, other people want to know relevant bits about you, with any purpose. So, don't you have right to choose what to share publicly with them? This is privacy.
Corporations also want our personal data. Maybe do you imply "no government, no corporations"?
Even in this scenario, other people want to know relevant bits about you, with any purpose. So, don't you have right to choose what to share publicly with them? This is privacy.
You don't have a right to information. If you don't protect your brain and it happens to leak brainwaves (or whatever), they now belong to the public sector. If I can capture them, I can do anything I want with the information they contain.
All I'm saying is that you can't expect privacy. Technology will reach a point where everything you do will be available publicly. Instead of fighting for privacy, maybe we should eliminate what makes us seek privacy, so that we can live in a more open and free world.
My solution is that we stop being hypocrite and blind. A lot of extremely common things are illegal simply because we're too afraid to look at reality. Let's be conservative and say that 25% of the population consumed marijuana illegally at one point or another. If we applied the current laws to all of these people, 25% of the population would have been in jail at some point. This is simply not sustainable. Still, this is what would happen if we applied these laws consistently. By knowing that 25% of the population consumed marijuana illegally, we reach two possibilities. Either we arrest all these people, or either we change the law, since it doesn't make sense in the first place.
Until we show society that some laws and social stigma (such as racism, homophoby, etc) don't make sense (as we would hate and jail everybody), people will have to live in fear and obscurity.
All I'm saying is that you can't expect privacy. Technology will reach a point where everything you do will be available publicly. Instead of fighting for privacy, maybe we should eliminate what makes us seek privacy, so that we can live in a more open and free world.
My solution is that we stop being hypocrite and blind. A lot of extremely common things are illegal simply because we're too afraid to look at reality. Let's be conservative and say that 25% of the population consumed marijuana illegally at one point or another. If we applied the current laws to all of these people, 25% of the population would have been in jail at some point. This is simply not sustainable. Still, this is what would happen if we applied these laws consistently. By knowing that 25% of the population consumed marijuana illegally, we reach two possibilities. Either we arrest all these people, or either we change the law, since it doesn't make sense in the first place.
Until we show society that some laws and social stigma (such as racism, homophoby, etc) don't make sense (as we would hate and jail everybody), people will have to live in fear and obscurity.
Sorry, I consider weak this argument. There is no relation between privacy and your "marijuana argument".
Hypocrital laws weren't created because of need for privacy. Neither social stigma has nothing to do with privacy.
I agree that there is a need to change a lot of laws and get rid of social stigmas, but... To try to relate privacy with wrong behaviour (unfair laws, stigmatization) is a false equivalence.
I won't say a thing about brainwave capturing technology. I guess it is not easily feasible without isolating the target person, because all the "brainiac" background noise in crowded areas.
Hypocrital laws weren't created because of need for privacy. Neither social stigma has nothing to do with privacy.
I agree that there is a need to change a lot of laws and get rid of social stigmas, but... To try to relate privacy with wrong behaviour (unfair laws, stigmatization) is a false equivalence.
I won't say a thing about brainwave capturing technology. I guess it is not easily feasible without isolating the target person, because all the "brainiac" background noise in crowded areas.
But it misses (or more precisely underemphasizes) an even greater point, I believe -- the chilling effect of surveillance. There are things you don't do because they MIGHT be used against you. Worrying about that -- even stopping to makethat calculation -- is a tragic reduction of liberty and happiness.