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

[Dele Atanda < >]

Hi Crosbie,

What I take from your email is that you agree that some form of privacy is a 
natural right but that the parameters of what is natural born privacy versus 
what is artificial or dare I say social privacy is less clear. 

That principal I don't disagree with. I think what is called for now is 
clarification as to what spaces are private and which ones are public in 
cyberspace. I don't necessarily agree with your definitions of which spaces 
are private and which ones are public but believe that these territories and 
boundaries need to be established and agreed by general consent.  In a world 
of a pervasive, ever-present Internet I don't think it's practical or 
accurate to think of the entire cloud as a public space simply because the 
infrastructure is provided by a third party. 

Think for example of a private banking vault used to store valuable personal 
possessions. Though this facility is provided by a third party this does not 
give that party the right to access or explore the contents of its customers 
vaults. If it were to do this then there would be a complete breakdown in 
trust and the service would collapse. So physical jurisdiction is not what 
determines  the right to privacy, it is the expectations, agreements and 
relationships between people and organisations that does. Client-attorney, 
doctor-patient privileges are all examples of such relationships that would 
fail without guaranteed privacy which our legal systems consequently respect.

What is now called for in the context of cyberspace is an understanding and 
social contract that clarifies the parameters of what relationships, 
exchanges and flows of information are open or public and which ones are 
private and under which circumstances so that we may use cyberspace as a 
beneficial extension of our societies and eventually usher in new more highly 
socially evolved ones. 
 
Dele



On 16 Aug 2014, at 13:24, "Crosbie Fitch" 
<
 >
 wrote:

> 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.