So, I was thinking about privacy recently and what it means - why is it important or, at least, why do we deem it to be important? Why do people often become upset at perceived violations of privacy? Is there a difference in real world privacy as opposed to virtual privacy?
Why do we value privacy? Though it is sufficient in practice, from a philosophical point of view I don't think it is enough to reply "I don't want you looking in my pocketbook". Nothing in that statement gives any indication of what it is about privacy that makes it worth protecting. Instead, it is a statement of desire, expressing a wish that X not do Y. Maybe asking why assumes too much. Perhaps I should ask myself if privacy even has value in and of itself. As a starting position, I will assert that "privacy" is an empty term that only acquires bite when contextualized - i.e. when the term is applied to something. So, then, to what does privacy apply that I should make a value judgment?
I started to think of all the things to which concerns about privacy could apply (thoughts in ones head, using the toilet, whispering to someone in public, the contents of a bag, etc.) and tried to think of some simple way to distinguish from what is a rather wide range of concerns. Something I came up with (though I am sure it is not original) is distinguishing internal from external privacy concerns. The reason for distinguishing between the two is to asset that a moral right to privacy is not univeral and that it only applies to certain concerns - here, internal ones. I wanted to distinguish internal versus external as "not involving/dependent on interaction with entities beyond the self" versus "involving/dependent on interaction with entities beyond the self". What is internal? Based on the foregoing, perhaps only your thoughts and (to the extent internalized) feelings. So perhaps there is only an abolute moral right to privacy with respect to internal processes - i.e. privacy concerning such matters is to be assumed. Everything else, the external, is not subjectt privacy rights unless justified. So, simply:
internal --> one has to justify why privacy rights do not exist
external --> one has to justify why privacy rights do exist
As mind-reading machines to do not exist, concerns about the internal fall away. So where does that leave us? In the rather unappealing position of saying that one has no right to privacy unless such right is justified. Though I am sure that a whole lotta people would disagree with me, I do not necessarily see this as an issue so long as we also understand why privacy rights might be assetted. Asserting a right to privacy over something is essentially denying another person access to knowledge - knowledge of what is in your bag, knowledge of what you wrote in that email, knowledge of what drugs you injest to take the edge off.
Why deny a person access to certain knowlege? Here, I can't say "Because they don't have a right to it" as I have already stated that there is no pre-existing right to deny access to the knowledge. As the baseline accepts universal access, the point is that they DO have a right to such knowledge. The trick is to find a reason to justify stating that the right to deny access to the information (i.e. the right to privacy) trumps another's right to access that information.
I think one reason is power - access to certain pieces of knowledge increase the risk or potential that another will/can exercise power over another. The more people know, the more powerful they are - this is one reason why "democracies" give so much attention to of open government and governmental disclosure. However, increased power is not necessarily beneficial as not all entities have equal ability to exploit knowledge. Certain individuals or groups of individuals are better placed to make use of knowledge to the detriment of those to whom the particular knowledge applies.
So that is my thought - privacy is a defensive tactic against the abuse of power.
This may seem an odd way to think about it but, on reflection, I realized that I think like this anyway. I am a firm believer in the free flow of information and so, rather than ask myself "Why should I disclose this information?", tend to say "Why should I prevent others from knowing this information?" For instance, I could not find any material reason to justify me preventing others from knowing the contents of my WoW character's bags and bank account. However, I refrain from posting my bank account details online together with a file containing a valid electronic signature as I judge that the potential for someone using such information in a manner that negatively affects me vastly outweighs anyones elses "right" to know such information.
This still bears thinking about.
