What Privacy Is For (2012)

I don&#x27;t really follow this article; it makes little sense to say that privacy is anything but a defensive tool.<p>The issue with privacy, and the reason it has such an image problem, is that society can be split up into 3 groups:<p>* People who believe authority figures are fundamentally acting in good faith (large majority).<p>* People who believe authority figures are acting in bad faith (substantial minority)<p>* People who want to deploy authority to make others do what they want.<p>Group 3 want privacy to have an image problem, and they are persistent in their attacks.<p>Privacy is a tool for the second group to convince the first to coordinate with them. The first group won&#x27;t accept arguments that authority figures might potentially act in bad faith. Therefore, the argument must be made that people have fundamental rights to privacy that a good faith authority figure will not want to infringe.<p>It is a matter of taste what people want to believe the % breakdown of society is into those 3 groups, but try going in to a discussion arguing that authorities might in the future act in bad faith. It is remarkably difficult to carry a debate with that frame despite substantial evidence.

At a more fundamental level, perhaps the justification for privacy is this:<p>Privacy is about thoughts. It is impossible to fully know the mind of another person. Without that knowledge, a person&#x27;s thoughts can never be fully put into context. If all thoughts were made public, all human beings would look like monsters or mentally ill to each other. This is why privacy is necessary.

The greatest trick I think we&#x27;ve had played on us is that we think privacy requires justification at all.<p>It is the natural state of existence, where there is a boundary between your experience and that of others. It is the primary and most natural freedom, and the people who use language and force to deprive you of it only do it because they want you to to work for them - instead of them. Privacy is not defended by words, because words themselves presume an external authority to prevail upon and get permission from. Privacy itself is freedom and it is only exercised by action.<p>I actually worked in privacy for a decade or more, consulting to government organizations about how to preserve their legitimacy when they collect data on people. I&#x27;ve discovered there are a fair number of bureaucratic nihilists who think ends justify means, and see the idea of privacy as being anti-progress, but mainly just anti-them. Wow do they get mad when you ask them do comply with the law.

Alternate PDF link: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;harvardlawreview.org&#x2F;wp-content&#x2F;uploads&#x2F;pdfs&#x2F;vol126_cohen.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;harvardlawreview.org&#x2F;wp-content&#x2F;uploads&#x2F;pdfs&#x2F;vol126_c...</a><p>(SSRN absolutely refuses to give up the goods.)

Probably needs a (2012) label since that is the year this paper was first published.