RE: [projectvrm] Scott Adams: Information is the Cure for Privacy

["Crosbie Fitch" < >]

From: Adrian Gropper
>Furthermore, unless they have a keen sense of mental telepathy, the *do*
have
>what I sincerely hope is privacy of a type that must be considered a
universal
>right.  How about we start there and work outward.  At what point do you
disagree?

Why introduce the supernatural? It is a distraction.

Let's also distinguish between the power individuals have naturally (innate,
natural rights) and the power some people would like individuals to be given
by the state (legislated rights or privileges).

Then, as far as the 'rights' in 'universal rights' is concerned, we have the
following two definitions of what 'rights' means:

1) Natural rights (unabridged by privilege) 
2) NewSpeak 'rights' (apparently based upon a foundation of natural rights,
but an independent set of privileges developed by social engineers for 'the
greater good')

For the first definition, given nature is universal, natural rights are a
priori universal.

However, for the second definition, 'universal rights' are those 'rights'
that some people believe SHOULD be universal, e.g. in well engineered
civilisations.

One should therefore be clear what one means by 'universal'.

I can only address the following in terms of natural rights - any other
meaning being a corruption (and beneath criticism).

Privacy is the individual's innate physical power, and hence natural right,
to exclude others. Privacy is not a function of the nature of the material
or information concerned within, nor of the individual's preference for
another's discretion should they give them any of that material or
information.

Determining what is private is a matter of determining the physical boundary
about the space concerned (with respect to the individual occupant).

>You have a right to privacy in 
>...the sensations you experience.
>...    " through bio-augmentation such as a hearing aid.
>...your own feelings.
>...your own thoughts once articulated into mental words and/or images.
>... " once articulated in hand-written form in a journal.
>... " articulated in digital form using hardware and software you own.
>... " " deliberately encrypted and transmitted or stored on public
infrastructure.
>... " " and stored in a private cloud database.

So, in all the above, where is your private space? Where is the space you
occupy, you being naturally endowed with the power to exclude others?

Within your skull? Within or beneath your clothes? In your desk drawer? In
your home?

Those are YOUR private spaces.

A database owned by another is in THEIR private space.
A network owned by many others is in THEIR private spaces.

If you communicate information to another (information from your private
space) then that information becomes private to that other (it enters their
private space).

If you want to keep certain information private then don't disclose it to
another.

If you don't want someone else to know that you can smell their fart, then
don't react - don't disclose your sensation. However, if you do disclose
your sensation, then you have no power to abridge the liberty of others to
communicate your disclosure further. That it was a 'sensation you
experienced' doesn't cause privacy to arise. It is the boundary of your body
that encloses the space within, that constitutes the privacy of your
sensations.

If you write in your diary "My boss farted in the elevator today, but I was
careful to act as if I hadn't heard or smelt it", it is not the fact that
the information concerned a 'sensation you experienced' that makes the
writing private, but the fact it is in your home (private space 1), in your
office (private space 2), in your desk drawer (private space 3), in your
clasped diary (private space 4).

If you sell your diary on eBay, it becomes the private possession of another
(along with all information within it).

It doesn't matter if information is represented as carvings on rocks,
charcoal on parchment, pits in aluminium substrate, or electric charges in
silicon chips. The same natural laws apply. There is no magic change in the
nature of privacy, simply by dint of technology being sufficiently advanced.

Natural law is fundamental. Privacy is a fundamental, natural right. We must
beware of failing to distinguish between technology and magic, or we risk
inventing illusory rights. We do not need to rectify nature. We only need to
understand nature's fundamentals, how they apply to our technologies, and
how we can cope with them.

Instantaneous diffusion is a feature of our technology, not a deficiency of
nature, nor an undermining of privacy. Our ability to disseminate
confidences may well be greatly enhanced, but our privacy remains
unaffected.