Thread: Google Announces Privacy Policy Changes Across Products. No Opt-Out.

David Brin wrote a lot a few years back about information transparency and the extinction of privacy being inevitable, and I think he's probably right. His point was that it applies equally to public figures like politicians and corporations as it does to private citizens--more so, in fact, because more people are watching the President and Mansanto than are watching Joe Blow in Poughkeepsie. It's not totalitarian if it cuts both ways. Only if an imbalance of information exists--through, for instance, an imbalance of technology--is the disappearance of privacy a threat to liberty.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

His point was that it applies equally to public figures like politicians and corporations as it does to private citizens--more so, in fact, because more people are watching the President and Mansanto than are watching Joe Blow in Poughkeepsie. It's not totalitarian if it cuts both ways. Only if an imbalance of information exists--through, for instance, an imbalance of technology--is the disappearance of privacy a threat to liberty.

Politicians are in the public spotlight because they are servants of, and accountable to the public in a democracy, and there is a need-to-know basis for certain information because they're representing your interests. As a result they give up some privacy, though they are still entitled to a private life. It would be totalitarian if it went both ways because there is no valid justification for creating such symmetry. I need to know certain aspects of a politician's life, they do NOT need to know certain aspects of mine. Likewise, in certain cases this might be reversed, depending on the context and reasoning.

It's also an imbalance of information if one party gets information from many other parties. If a politician's activities are public, it's not an equal exchange for them to find out everything from all other citizens; the information imbalance is extreme in such a case.

Corporations... again there is usually a strong element of public interest here because once you get to a certain size you inevitably start influencing things for the rest of the public. A couple of examples would be effects on the environment and shared/public resources, and the effects of lobbyists. In these cases they have to give up privacy because of the impact on public affairs. Where this does not apply then they have the same right to privacy as anyone else.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Politicians are in the public spotlight because they are servants of, and accountable to the public in a democracy, and there is a need-to-know basis for certain information because they're representing your interests. As a result they give up some privacy, though they are still entitled to a private life. It would be totalitarian if it went both ways because there is no valid justification for creating such symmetry. I need to know certain aspects of a politician's life, they do NOT need to know certain aspects of mine. Likewise, in certain cases this might be reversed, depending on the context and reasoning.

I'm not talking about "should" here, I'm talking about "will," as in "Information will be free." As media companies are having so much trouble learning, law is not enough to make data stay where you want it and behave. As long as channels of transmission continue to multiply (or even if they stayed at current levels), information will get out.

Whether or not we're "entitled" to privacy as a "right," it's entirely possible that we no longer live in a world where it's a possibility.