Privacy as Non-Intrusion

By Jason M. Pittman, Sc.D.

For the betterment of our species, I want privacy to end. To understand the goal, we first must come to grips with what privacy is. Earlier, I suggested that privacy was comprised of five information constructs. The first such construct that we ought to examine is non-intrusion.

A classic view of privacy is that of being free from intrusion. This is the privacy we are thinking of when we consider physical space (e.g. bedrooms). However, I am unconvinced that the modern conceptual framework of privacy pertains to physical space. Rather, I contend that the modern view of privacy, in the context of non-intrusion, applies to mental spaces. Thus, we can ask if such mental space is a container for information or if mental space is an abstraction of information.

I would suggest that the former is more descriptive of reality. Specifically, I think space is apt because we can place information into such space and have that information acquire a privacy status. Further, space is appropriate because reality operates identically in other areas. For example, putting food into a refrigerator yields a food status of refrigerated. Executing a program in a computer imparts a status of running (or instantiated).

Moreover, we can give the same information to another entity and the information loses that privacy status. Likewise, when we remove food from the refrigerator that food is no longer refrigerated in the present tense. Same for computer programs.

It may be beneficial to conceptualize physical space according to the same principle. That is, if I consider my home office a private space, I am private when I am in the office but not when I am in my kitchen (if I consider my kitchen to not be a private space). This is where non-intrusion gets a bit tricky, however. If you come into my home office, are you private? I think the rational answer is that it depends on my view of the space, not yours.

Yet, does the same apply to mental spaces and information? In other words, if your information enters my private mental space, is that information private or not? Further, does the privacy depend upon my view or yours? Here, I suspect that we would agree that the state of privacy is dependent upon your view, not mine. In fact, the direct opposite of the physical conceptualization.

Furthermore, if non-intrusion implies that others are prevented from interacting with information we possess then we must examine the presupposition that information can be possessed, and that possession is an exclusive condition. Certainly, we can imagine instances where something is known to only a single individual or singular entity. Here, the presupposition holds. However, does it hold in instances in which two individuals possess the same information? Now, we’re forced to acknowledge that information and possession is another discrepancy in the concept of non-intrusion.

I would not, then, say that the information construct of privacy as non-intrusion is wholly satisfactory. The concept seems to work in some cases but not others. I don’t think such disqualifies non-intrusion entirely. Yet, I do think we should consider other possible explanations for what privacy is before we move to harder questions.