Privacy: Why it Must End

Dr. Jason M. Pittman, Sc. D., is a scholar, professor, and cybersecurity thought leader. He currently is on the full-time faculty at Capitol Technology University. This is part two of an ongoing series on privacy.

Previously, I made the assertion that privacy, while necessary in the present, is ultimately bad for our future. I do recognize the boldness of my claim. Thus, I want to exercise due care in laying down the groundwork for the full argument.

Over the course of this essay series, I will present my reasons as to why privacy must end. First, I will demonstrate why privacy is unnatural. This is contrary to mainstream opinion of course and much of the basis for the definition of privacy as well. Second, I will show that privacy is a proxy for a different problem. More aptly put, privacy is a descriptive label assigned to a host of underlying, root issues that ought to be addressed separately. Third, I will reveal privacy as a restrictive mechanism that directly impedes both individual and social growth. That is, privacy only keeps us as free as the walls in a zoo impart freedom unto the animals. Finally, and most importantly, I will establish that privacy produces a cumulative negative value for individuals and the species (human).

Why would we continue engaging in behavior that results in a worse situation then we currently find ourselves?

Foremost, we need to understand why there is high demand for privacy. Yes, this presupposes that there is high demand for privacy, but I feel safe in this presupposition given the overt evidence in the pop dialectic. That is, all the research -- the interviews, the reading, and the presentations -- points towards three aspects of privacy that result in the high demand we see nowadays. These are parity, currency, and permanency of information. Understanding the demand for privacy does not necessarily develop an understanding of privacy however.

Thus, there are fundamental principles that ought to be considered that will lead us towards a definition of privacy. This means that we need to develop a working comprehension of concepts such as intrusion, seclusion, limitation, and control. I am doubtful that your definition of privacy will match a singular principle in this list. Rather, I have found that modern privacy is an amalgamation of these principles. Such comprehension invariably will lead us to ponder where privacy originates (i.e., how do we know privacy) the relative merit of privacy; whether privacy is flawed for example.

As a matter of fact, I now perceive privacy, in all the potential amalgamated definitions, to be deeply flawed. I will share with you the deficiencies in privacy that I have uncovered. The flaws I intend to discuss are privacy as a zero-sum heuristic, privacy as an anthropomorphism, privacy as declines, and privacy as a perception.

I do not hesitate to mention that these defects are exceedingly catastrophic to the case for privacy. Nevertheless, my viewpoint only represents the conclusion I have reached. I would be remiss to inculcate this view of catastrophic flaw in privacy without first offering you a deeper explanation as to why I think privacy is bad. The explanation here is the same as for why privacy must end, thus we have come full circle.

Full circle is not automatically the end of the conversation, however. If I have convinced you that privacy must end, I want to provide some transparency into what I feel we can do to rid ourselves of privacy. Much of my thinking involves using technology to re-balance the overarching information equation. The other parts of my answer to privacy involve tearing down and rebuilding the human mind as such relates to the underlying privacy pathology.

To be sure, the going will be hard. I honestly do not have all the answers. However, I do think we can find the right questions together.