Privacy: Illusion or Reality?

So is privacy an illusion?

For me, the question comes to mind whenever I hear someone make the claim that it is indeed an illusion, and then also goes further to state that since it's an illusion, they have no obligation to respect it.

As one individual explained to me, "Do you know how easily I could get anyone's credit card info if I wanted to?" He then went on to state that he would never do that, because he's a decent person - but that has nothing to do with his continued assertion about privacy being an illusion.

So I asked him: "If you were to steal someone's info in that way, would you do it right out in the open? Or would you cover your tracks?"

He looked at me like I was asking him a stupid question. "Well of course I would cover my tracks."

"But why? I thought you said privacy was an illusion."

He then went on to talk about the difference between reality and social standards of Morality and how that would force him to cloak his actions in secrecy. There wasn't much of value to me in the Moral Relativism aspect of his argument (him being a decent person and all), but it did get me to thinking about how he had substituted privacy for secrecy.

Then it occurred to me that privacy is neither an illusion nor an absolute guarantee. Privacy is a value. And so is secrecy. They are both very different values, and from what I've seen those who value the latter want to eliminate the value of the former.

"If you're not doing anything wrong then you don't have anything to hide."

You may not have anything to hide but you do have something to protect. The individual needs a private space in which to foster development… Think of someone creating intellectual property as an example. But it goes much further than simply creating art in the world. It is the fostering of the self within, towards the process of individuation.

If you're doing something by yourself that doesn't directly affect anyone else, then it's private. It's no secret that everyone goes to the toilet every day. It's also a private act. Even in a communal bathroom it would be very aggressive to stare at someone while they were performing this function.

As far as fostering the self applies to this example: some of my best thinking happens on the can. And even if that's not the case for you, really what I'm talking about here is the regeneration of energy through individuated selfhood, so even the function of sitting on the crapper plays a part in that process.

If you're doing something with someone else and both of you are able to make that choice freely, and it doesn't directly affect anyone else, then its private. Individuals do quite often share privacy and in so doing foster creativity and regeneration; quite literally, after all.

The difference between privacy and secrecy is that privacy involves only those individuals who choose to participate and secrecy always involves someone else who did not, or could not, make that choice, whether they knew it or not. If you're spying on someone then it's in your interest to keep it a secret from them and others.

In a general sense, secrecy is conspiratorial, and privacy is developmental. Those who conspire ultimately want to control others. Almost all secrecy is born from either dire circumstances, or malicious intentions, with a crossover happening between the two. Some may be forced to conspire in secret due to an authoritarian regime exerting control over them. However at some point that same justification may turn to a corruption of its own. In any event the secrecy originates from a negative condition.

The more I think about it the more it seems to me that privacy and secrecy are polarities. When people are free to develop in private then they are less incentivized to behave in secret towards each other.

Perhaps smaller scale societies disprove this claim. But this may come down to different standards for privacy, rather than the notion of privacy itself. Is there a type of respect for personal boundaries within such cultures that may not be as apparent to a modern view?

Regardless of the degree to which different cultures may recognize it, I still make this assertion: Privacy is the space were all potentiality starts. This is the sacred aspect of human existence and it must not be violated through intrusion. Even though it is not ultimately separate from everything else, it is by necessity differentiated in causation, so as to channel energy to the maximum possible benefit for all. Once in public that potentiality manifests in forms both creative and destructive, depending on how the potentiality has been developed.

Intrusion upon potentiality may take the form of wilful contempt for boundaries, but it also takes the form of premature recognition. This is why "participation trophies" are just as bad as brute attacks on the ego, because both are flipping the plane of effects onto the plane of causation. A similar problem occurs with the concept of "safe spaces", except here the plane of causality is flipped onto the plane of effects; resulting in an attack on the commons, which is supposed to be where prior self development manifests publicly for interaction with others - a responsive space of mutual cause and effect, where potentiality is now able to regenerate as a rhythm between individuals and groups.

The value of privacy must be upheld to protect the development of individuation, which in turn is able to provide a bulwark against the intrusion of secrecy and conspiracy. Because it is the conspirator who must compromise one's development in order to make them culpable to the effects of conspiracies, both small and large, creating constant imbalances in the world to justify control over others... The private individual is someone who sees their self in balance with the individuation of all other selves, and as such has the capacity to then appreciate greater harmony with the world as a whole.

Both the writing and the image were created by Greg McCann, the author of this post and the owner of this Steemit Channel.
To view more of my work, please visit www.fireawaymarmot.com.