Privacy is a Biological Imperative?

sevej writes "As a lead-in to an article in the August 2007 issue, Scientific American recently published an interview with Carnegie Mellon computer scientist Latanya Sweeney regarding the trade-offs between security and privacy. Dr. Sweeney provides a refreshing counter-point to Sun Microsystems CEO, Scott McNealy's 'famous quip', 'Privacy is dead. Get over it.' She advocates the idea that privacy is not primarily a political expediency, but rather a biological one. Suggesting that technological design doesn't have to take a 'soup OR salad' approach, she calls for changes in the way present and future computer scientists are trained. Dr. Sweeney is quoted as saying, 'I think if we are successful in producing a new breed of engineers and computer scientists, society will really benefit. The whole technology-dialectics thing is really aiming at how you should go about teaching engineers and computer scientists to think about user acceptance and social adoption [and also that they] have to think about barriers to technology [from the beginning].'"

Privacy is important

[realsilly]

The human being needs space and to be able to have his/her own thoughts, feeling, and actions, be their own.

Why should be give up our right to privacy? It is a Constituational right. But it is also a personal right. Stop for a moment to consider how much you want other people knowing about your bad habits. Opposite side, of that picture, do you really want to know how much lint come from your neighbors...... pockets?

I say no. Privacy is needed for inner peace of mind. This includes the knowlege that you are not being watched 24/7. People are more stressed out stuggling to keep their private lives private rather than enjoying their lives.

we'd never reproduce

[petes_PoV]

If people were meant to be private (and therefore solitary? I don't know) then we would not have evolved as a gregarious species. We'd still be roaming the plains and beating up other members of the human race whenever we met one - of the same gender as ourselves. We'd certainly never have developed language and probably wouldn't have any higher brain functions either.

OK, I know that's how a lot of people act - hopefully they will never reproduce, but having neighbours and sharing things with them is part of how we developed. Privacy only started when humans started wearing clothes: a great step backwards, ISTM.

Re:Biology would be pro-active defense, not reacti

[Pig Hogger]

There is no biological response, yet, to keeping your information private.

Yes there is. Many animals (not just the humans) will hide to defecate (ever had cats at home?). The same thing often goes for mating.

Many monkeys will go berserk if you just stare at them, and staring at a charging feline will very often stop it dead on it's tracks; this is why thai farmers will wear masks on the back of their heads, it will stop tigers from attacking.

Animals need privacy, too, and will make sure they get it.

Giving up privacy = giving an advantage to others

[dpbsmith]

Do power players show their cards to each other? Why not? Because a poker game is a (somewhat) adversarial situation, in which disclosing information give an advantage to your opponents, which they are likely to exploit.

A large number of human situations involve some degree of negotiation and are to some degree adversarial. Knowledge can be power, and knowledge can be money. You don't need to be a control freak to want to retain some degree of control.

Not that I expect to get the better of a car deal, but I still don't necessarily want the salesman to know how much money I can write a check for today, and he doesn't necessarily want me to know the financial state of the dealership or his sales goal for the month and how many cars he's sold.

Re:Biology would be pro-active defense, not reacti

[Sperbels]

If you consider privacy to be a trivial matter then why is the removal of privacy one of the first things done to prisoners, cult members, or hostages to break them down mentally?

Let's not forgot new soldiers in boot camp. Removing their privacy forces compliance and conformance.

The issue of engineering attitude.

[FuzzyDaddy]

Training engineers and computer scientists to consider privacy issues would be a good start. The natural instinct of an engineer is to collect as much information as possible, and to make it as accessible as possible. Mostly this has nothing to with human privacy (I don't think my PCB minds having thermistors all over it...). But it's a fundemental approach to gather as much information as you can, even if you don't know what it's going to be used for.

There have been two main technological obstacles to ubiquitous surveilance. The first is getting the data from the sensor to some central location. Universal wireless networks have taken care of that. The second is the storage and filtering of all that data. That problem's been solved with cheap storage and better computers and software. So, in building other things people want (cell phone systems, computers with enough storage and power to handle video, etc.) we've put all the tools in place of a low cost, universal surveilance system.

Even the last minor hurdle - powering the sensors - is being overcome with "energy harvesting" technology. It's not enough to power video cameras yet, but the market forces will certainly push it in that direction.

The days are over when we could safeguard our privacy by technological limitations (the "who's going to bother looking at what I'm doing" defense). So perhaps it is time for the engineers and the computer scientists to start considering the privacy issues from the beginning, as a technology issue.

We work hard to build devices that don't electrocute or maim us. It's time we started considering social harm as well, and not leave it all to the politicians.

Re:Scientific Proof

[ShieldW0lf]

The big thing about privacy, it lets people live with illusions. That's pretty important to a lot of people.

There are a lot of people in positions of power and authority who do not deserve to be there, and are only there because they've tricked everyone around them.

Those people are not going to be advantaged by the inevitable loss of privacy.

The more influence they have, the more they are wielding their power with flagrant disregard for their fellows, the more that the truth will hurt them.

None of this, however, means that we're better off with things the way they are.

Rational!

[rumblin'rabbit]

The desire for privacy may be entirely rational.

Humans are, after all, a thinking species - we know how to use information, both for ourselves and against our competitors. By denying information to our competitors we gain an upper hand, whether it be in war and combat, social standing, accessing food and water, and so on. How often, for example, has a social situation felt like a game of poker, with bluffing and deception?

Knowledge is power. By denying information to our competitors we may well improve our own chances for survival and procreation.

Re:Privacy is based in natural rights

[MasterC]

Americans tend to mistakenly think in terms of rights granted by their federal constitution.

I have been a fan of Alexander Hamilton since I learned he opposed a bill of rights. From the Federalist No. 84:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

I think Hamilton hit the nail on the head. Read the bill of rights and think of how many times those are blatantly, or pushed, or broken on a technicality of interpretation. Imprisoning journalists for their sources while questioning if they are, indeed, a "journalist." In many places you cannot freely assemble a large, peaceful group without a permit. Arguing if an assault weapon ban is legal because individuals aren't a milita. No need for warrants for email, etc. Holding people in guantanamo, abusing them, and not affording them due process because they are "prisoners of war" or whatever the current defense is. Then there's the whole civil rights movements: where does it say the government has the power to rescind the right to vote based on race or gender such that it was *necessary* to amend the constitution to rescind the government's power to do so?

I would like to hear what Hamilton would have to say today with a few centuries proving him right...