What is Privacy?

Jason M. Pittman, Sc.D.

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

I think privacy must end. I think privacy must end if we, as a species, are going to survive in the developing Virtual Age. To illustrate why I think so, I first outlined why privacy is in demand right now. Specifically, I indicated that privacy creates a perceived (but false) information parity, treats information as a currency, and implies information permanency. Knowing that privacy is in demand is to know only half of the conversation, however. 

The other half of the conversation is to know what constitutes privacy. To be sure, there are numerous definitions of privacy. Stated another way, there is no universal meaning for privacy. More importantly, there is no universal understanding of what is privacy. While the legal profession has much to say in this regard, I am not at all interested in legal debate. I am also not interested in defining privacy in a general manner.

Instead of simply defining privacy, I want to consider the question of what privacy entails. That is, what information can we determine to be private? I think this is straightforward if we only consider information that we possess. However, when we consider information in a broad context or information that someone else possesses, the question becomes somewhat more difficult. 

Modern society operates according to a narrative whereby privacy is something that is under constant assault. Privacy is something breached, compromised or undermined. Privacy is something you had as opposed to have or will have. These notions imply that privacy is a state and, moreover, a static state. I do not think the truth could be further from the implication.

I submit that privacy is a graduated or interval construct. Graduated and interval refer to the ability for privacy to incrementally increase or decrease (think about the delimiter marks on a ruler or thermometer). Moreover, I would argue that privacy is a continuum at both the individual and collective levels. That is, personal privacy can increase or decrease dynamically relative to various forms of information. Further, an individual’s privacy construct can differ from the collective. Meanwhile, the individual’s expectations and tolerance of privacy across the cultural collective is likewise volatile. 

We must also consider whether privacy can be envisioned as one construct in a given scenario and, later, a different construct in a differing scenario (or, perhaps even the same scenario replayed)? My point is that proclaiming privacy to be one construct is limiting and possibly dangerous as conceptualizing privacy as a single, static state. Indeed, privacy could be multiple constructs simultaneously. I highly suspect that this is closer to reality. I’m also left wondering how privacy, if it is such a valuable facet of human consciousness, can be so simultaneously versatile and universal at multiple levels of resolution.

I believe the answer exists in understanding privacy as five different information constructs: non-intrusion, seclusion, limitation, and control, and knowing. Thus, I want to spend some time developing a strong understanding of what privacy is as a prerequisite to our later questions. Please, join me as I continue to explore what is privacy.