Privacy is a Zero-Sum Heuristic

By Jason M. Pittman, DSc

 

Previously, I introduced the idea that privacy is flawed as a next step in my argument that privacy must end. One such flaw in privacy is that it's a condition of being a zero-sum heuristic. Let me explain what that means.

Zero-sum refers to situations in which gain and loss are tightly coupled. That is to say that when a gain is made, loss occurs for all non-gainers. A classic example is most games or sports. One team or individual wins and, as a result, all others lose.

A heuristic is simply a decision shortcut that results in mostly desirable outcomes.

We can use a simple thought experiment to illustrate how this privacy zero-sum heuristic works, and what makes it flawed.

Imagine information to be a ball. You have the ball in your hands. By all accounts you have exclusive control over the ball. Thus, others have limited (no) access to the ball. For all intents and purposes, the orb is private.

Okay, this is privacy as a zero-sum. You are in a state of winning. The rest of us, meanwhile, are in a state of losing. Now, let's say I am able to put my hand on the white orb as well. What change, if any, occurs with your state of winning when my hand comes into contact with the ball? What about my state of losing? What about the independent state of the ball (i.e., seclusion, limitation, control, and knowing)?

The careful eye will notice here that zero-sum activities promulgate an unnatural, unidirectional flow. That is, when I have information that is private, it follows that you do not have my private information. As well, if you were to obtain my private information, then I no longer have that privacy of that information. Yet, in practice this is not at all how information behaves (insofar as information has behavior).

Information is a non-zero-sum construct. More than one person can know something. That should be obvious to us. Further, while someone knowing what you may not want them to know invokes an emotion, knowing itself is a natural condition of information. On the other hand, forcing a zero-sum privacy wrapper onto information only serves to create an illusory sense of currency and permanency. Doing so also distorts parity of information. Taken collectively, we can see how privacy in action undermines the very conditions of its existence!

We end up mired in cognitive dissonance. Privacy, because it is a heuristic, is at best an approximation. But information cannot be approximately private, if privacy is zero-sum. On the other hand, if privacy is not zero-sum then there's no such condition possible whereby you hold the ball and I cannot touch it.

With that, the flaw of privacy as a zero-sum heuristic should be clear. However, we shouldn't end privacy because of a single flaw. If we did, we could be throwing out the baby with the bath water. Fortunately, we have three more flaws to examine. For example, in addition to this zero-sum heuristic flaw, we also anthropomorphize information and privacy.

Dr. Jason M. Pittman is a scholar, professor, and cybersecurity thought leader. He currently is on the full-time faculty at Capitol Technology University.