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

["Crosbie Fitch" < >]

> From: Dele Atanda
> What I take from your email is that you agree that some form 
> of privacy is a natural right

Privacy is a natural right.

Of course, some people may use the term 'privacy' for man-made laws that
define it differently, or for that which people would like to be treated as
if it were natural privacy.

> but that the parameters of what 
> is natural born privacy versus what is artificial or dare I 
> say social privacy is less clear.

People can say "I will not further disclose what I have been privy to, such
that it may be as if I was not privy, thus having the appearance of giving
you greater privacy than you actually had"

People can say "Despite being privy to the business and communications you
conduct via my facilities, I will behave as if I am not privy, thus
appearing to extend your privacy within my facilities"

It does not matter what people do or say, nor what laws they make, nor what
pretences they engage in, privacy does not change.

If you wish to understand what can and cannot be private, given modern
computing and communications technology, then you have to understand the
nature of privacy.

Of course, with or without such an understanding, with pretence and
charlatanism, many can and do convince people that their privacy can be
extended beyond its natural boundaries. Moreover, such charlatans have their
own following of gullible and not so gullible supporters - as if natural law
was subject to faith.

The parameters of privacy are clear.

The parameters of that which is not privacy, but that people still term
'privacy', may well be unclear (except perhaps to the charlatans that define
it).

The 'privacy' of charlatans is not useful to engineers, because it doesn't
work.

If Google (and its supporters) say that all the information and
communications you deliver to Google for its transmission or storage remains
private to you, this does not make it so. Even if a law is made that says
this is a situation in which privacy is extended, this does not actually
extend the individual's privacy - though it may extend the law's recognition
of their 'privacy'.


> 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.

There are no real, physical spaces in cyberspace, only virtual spaces. A
simulation or metaphor does not constitute reality, but virtual reality.
Moreover, there are no real, physical human beings in cyberspace, only
virtual people, or avatars.

Therefore there can be no privacy in cyberspace. You can have pretend
privacy, metaphorical privacy, or virtual privacy, but no real, physical
privacy. 

If you want to understand privacy, you have to remain real, physical. Such
clarity is also required if you want to engineer cyberspace, but that's
another subject.

We are human beings on a lump of rock orbiting a star. We live in caves and
communicate to those nearby via bodily movements and sound waves, and only
very recently, to those not so near, via radio waves and electronic
networks.

We have good imaginations, but sometimes we allow our imagination to fool us
into treating that which resembles reality as if it were reality.

The planet is a space. The Internet is a communications medium. Privacy can
only occur in space, and is a consequence of human occupancy.

Communications are private if they occur wholly within a private space, and
are private to those occupying that space.

So, if a message is whispered from one to another via 30 intermediaries, the
message is private to 32, not just 2. When the intermediaries are anonymous
strangers and unscrupulous mercenaries, it takes a lot of imagination (or
gullibility) for the two communicants to believe their conversation remains
private to just themselves.


> 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. 

Nature is not a democracy.

The world is not a midsummer night's dream, in which we write the play to
fit our 'general consent'. Tom Snout pretends to be a wall between Pyramus
and Thisbe, but he is not a wall, nor even a wall with a chink. The audience
may suspend its disbelief, but this does not change the nature of walls, nor
render imaginary walls real.

A boundary is determined by nature, by physics, not by agreement, e.g. that
a line in the sand may stand for a wall.


> 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. 

It's up to everyone to decide what's best for them to think.

I think that understanding nature helps us engineer better systems, and
avoid wasting time trying to solve unsolvable, non-problems.

Privacy is not a problem. Liberty is not a problem.

When people pretend that privacy can be extended, they are necessarily
encroaching upon liberty. Consequently, liberty becomes a problem in the
minds of those people. A problem that isn't a problem, and one that cannot
be solved. A waste of time. A distraction for gullible engineers, e.g. "How
can we disable the people's liberty to disclose confidences?".


> 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.

I have a locked treasure chest. It is my private property, and my private
space within. The walls of the chest constitute a real, physical boundary.

If you agree to look after my locked chest, the chest remains my property,
the space within remains private to me. You are at liberty to inspect and
exhibit the exterior, but not the interior.

If the chest had no boundary, no lid say, privacy does not manifest by
having you pretend the interior remains private to me.

I may agree to make you privy to the contents of the chest, perhaps by
leaving the lid open, or by giving you a key, but that does not mean privacy
would otherwise be obtained via agreement alone.

You cannot have privacy without a physical space.

Agreeing/pretending that sensitive information may be surrounded by an
imaginary quasi-spatial aura of 'privacy' which must be respected by all
others who handle it as if it were a real private space, does not actually
constitute privacy.

The Emperor's New Clothes provided no real privacy, despite pretence
otherwise.


> 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.

Don't confuse discretion with privacy.


> 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. 

It depends whether you are a politician or an engineer...

Understanding is what politicians call for, and engineers do.