What is privacy? It is the legal claim by a person or organization to control collection and access to information about him/her/them/itself – the right to decide who, what, where, when, how and if that information is made available to others. It has also been described as the citizen’s right to be left alone by the state.
The right to privacy is one of the cornerstones of democracy and for most of our ideas about civil rights and liberties.
It manifests as the right to own property; the privilege against self incrimination; the right to consult counsel; the right to face witnesses and to challenge evidence at an open trial; the right not to be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure; the presumption of innocence; proof of criminal allegations beyond reasonable doubt...
Privacy, as a concept or idea, evolved in the Common Law of England: “for an Englishman’s house is his castle.”
The American Declaration of Independence and Constitution enshrined it as a means of establishing and maintaining a balance between individual rights and the state or collective needs. It was meant to ensure that abuses such as those perpetrated by the Court of Star Chamber 300 years ago never again happen. And to protect and enhance our inalienable rights to pursue life, liberty, happiness, security, equality, fraternity... each according to the rhythm of our own heartbeats.
In the 18th century, “information” was something quite different from what it is today. It was recorded, organized, accessed and transferred subject to the personal frailties, limitations, biases, emotions, prejudices and, often, whims of the person/s observing or recording it. It was “malleable,” recorded on paper with quill pens and transmitted at the speed of horses and sails. It was often error prone, subjective, inaccurate and unreliable.
In the 21st century, “Big Brother” is here – whether or not we like it! The Information Age means that data about us can be robotically and objectively gathered and compiled with a very high degree of accuracy and reliability... in real time and almost instantly accessible! Indeed, because data “casts shadows,” practically every detail of each person’s life could be fairly and accurately reconstructed by a third party with access to the relevant data.
Of course, history teaches us a horrible lesson. It is the syllogism proved time and again in our experience: when properly organized, data becomes information; information, properly understood, becomes knowledge; “Knowledge is power”; “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Access to discrete information and, in particular, exclusive access, is an extremely valuable “commodity.” It drives most of the engines of our civilization: government, economics, commerce, politics, law enforcement, dispute and conflict resolution...
But we are afraid of concentration of information gathering and uncontrolled access thereto because it makes it so much easier for others to learn details of our lives which make it possible for them to perpetrate abuse.
But the reality is that the balance between citizen and state, in particular, has shifted dramatically over the past few decades – particularly in relation to the need for data and information to secure ourselves against threats which, in the 18th century, were unimaginable.
We have a very serious problem. It is the enemy within. It is our own refusal to honestly re-examine and reassess many of our fundamental ideas about ourselves, our rights and our institutions in light of the fact that technology has transformed our reality.
We are trapped by our unswerving commitment to ideas and concepts that have, in fact, become obsolete.
We have long accepted as axiomatic the proposition that each of us is a sovereign and independent individual. This notion is a keystone of our legal, economic and political systems.
But the undeniable fact is that over the past 250 years we have become and are increasingly becoming interdependent, interrelated, interconnected and interactive.
This is a much different and extremely more complex proposition. The nature of our relationships is totally different. Our personal realities have shifted dramatically. Our ways of thinking and ideas have not. We have placed ourselves in the horrible quandary of trying to manage a 21st century, complex, dynamic reality with 18th century, simple, static tools.
Change is obviously needed.
The direction of that change must take into consideration two propositions that are logically irresistible and factually incontrovertible.
First, that the greater the volume and the better the quality of information available to a decision maker, the more likely the decision will be intelligent. Second, that privacy is a barrier to clarity and transparency and, thus, an impediment to accountability in our affairs.
It must also take into consideration another factor that is equally indisputable. The most prominent example of the right to privacy is the privilege against self-incrimination -- the right to remain silent, as it is often called.
But, whom does this right protect? Not the innocent! Their best protection and defense is clarity:- an accurate, full and transparent disclosure of all the material facts and circumstances. In other words, all relevant information: “the truth.” For the guilty, on the other hand, their best defense is opacity:- the suppression and obfuscation of information. Questions of abuse aside, only the guilty truly benefit from privacy.
Today, we do not really need privacy. We need protection from potential abuse.
Privacy, secrecy and opacity are a charter of opportunities for abusers.
Much more so now that we understand that the threat to our freedom and security is not from external sources that can be observed, measured and anticipated, but from the enemy within... for terrorism is a clandestine, internal threat.
Is it possible, today, to create a just society in which all information is freely available to whosoever genuinely needs it? I think it is. Indeed, how can there be justice without truth?
