The Treasure which is Privacy

From Big Baboon, 12 Years ago, written in Plain Text.

URL http://geopaste.scratchbook.ch/view/2b3fb08b

Shorturl

Embed

THE TREASURE WHICH IS PRIVACY

=============================

Abstract:

The Philosophy of Privacy Extremism emphasizes that privacy should be

maintained in all situations; that if in question, privacy should be given

preference, unless sufficient arguments to the contrary apply to the specific

situation.

Privacy serves as a necessary condition for engaging in meaningful and

truthful interpersonal relationships.

Furthermore privacy is a necessary condition under which a person can develop

a self and embrace individual responsibility for decisions and actions that

result from them.

A denial of privacy to the contrary establishes and maintains a lack and loss

of esteem, respect and value in and for things and other persons.

Privacy should therefor be the strong standard for personal behavior,

normative for those that thrive towards personal human positive development.

The Treasure which is Privacy

-----------------------------

The first response to someone who makes an effort to protect his privacy is

often "I have nothing to hide because I have nothing to fear" - usually

accompanied by an expression of righteous pride or the blissful presentation

of carelessness.

As with most routine responses that have become maxims of contemporary society

and proverbs uttered in reply to trigger words, this statement is more

informative about the speaker than of the addressee or the subject of

discussion.

More often than not its underlying meaning should be rephrased to read "I am

uneasy, maybe even afraid, around people that hide something". As such it

carries the implied request to anyone hearing it, that they shall stop

covering and hiding things to relieve the speaker of his uneasiness.

But even when taken at face value, above sentence communicates that it is the

lack of fear that is the speakers justification for not protecting his

privacy. Apart from the simple rejection of this statement as being false in

the light of existing and relevant threats and the reference to the

blissfulness of ignorance, it is the exclusiveness of fear as the proposed

reason for privacy that warrants consideration.

The reference to fear in this context should first be understood as an

instrument of rhetorics instead of an adequate choice of words in a balanced

and clearheaded reasoning.

Fear refers to the emotional response to existential danger and implies the

lack or loss of courage to confront the danger.

The sentence under analysis should thus be rephrased to read "You hide things

because you lack courage in the presence of an imagined existential threat."

It is therefor a double accusation of both cowardice and delusion.

Again it is not the focus of this analysis to show that protection of privacy

and admitting to doing so requires a bit more courage than to repeat common

proverbs, or that certain dangers exist that can be effectively answered by

privacy. Nor does it need emphasis that those who protect the privacy of

others often do so in the face of opponents that go a long way to ruin the

names, property, freedom and sometimes even health and life of those

courageous guards of privacy.

Instead it should be pointed out, that there are for more reasons to protect

ones privacy, and that of others, than fear of losing freedom or life or even

good reputation.

It is interesting to note that an old synonym for 'fear' could e awe,

admiration or astonishment, even respect.

Worded this way, one might read above sentence as "I hide nothing, because I

admire and respect nothing." This way it becomes clear that the denial of

privacy is often nothing but a lack of things that are valued and the demand

that others should not value something themselves.

It thus contains the claim that nothing should be special and set apart.

Which brings us to the original meaning of the word 'private'. In Latin it

refers to persons and things that were set apart from what would be available,

subordinate and used by all persons - the public.

Thus giving up one's privacy, as in the sentence we discuss, entails nothing

else but the transformation of the speaker into a not particularly important

and indistinguishable fragment of the mass. If the speaker is really not in

fear about anything, it would primarily refer to not fearing to become a

nothingness in the grey mass - just a grain of dust in the crowd.

It is safe to say then, that the speaker does not value and respect himself as

an individual human person, or that he cowardly fears to be recognized as

such.

Leaving the analysis of the original statement one should now focus on the

negation of the privacy opponent's reply while keeping its completed meaning

in mind:

"Because I value and respect some things, I hide some things."

Three areas shall serve as examples of preserving value through hiding:

Complex minority opinions, relationships between persons, and the human person

itself.

Complex opinions and bodies of knowledge that are valued highly by their

bearers are often only communicated under strict conditions to prevent

misunderstanding, misrepresentation, confusion and disintegration.

This is especially useful if the opinion is only held by a minority or if the

potential audience lacks the necessary context of knowledge to integrate and

consider the new information.

The strict conditions under which the information will be communicated serves

herein as the boundary between public and private. The more complex, valuable

and different from general knowledge the new information is, the stricter the

conditions of communicating them becomes. This can be seen in various areas.

Personal political or moral opinions, especially if they are held only by a

minority, will often not be communicated in situations that only allow

superficial or time restrained conversation.

These situations do not allow for the speaker to present and argue for their

position and thus risk for the information to be misunderstood and

misrepresented later.

The consequences of this disintegration of information can be witnessed in the

effects of hearsay that considers itself with minority groups and opinions,

leading to widespread false myths that often cannot be corrected afterwards

because they have become part of common knowledge.

Thus it is often favorable to conceal personal opinion and deprive the public

of correct information if otherwise the reinforcement of false information or

the support of slander are likely.

The quality of public and political debate as well as the celebrity and gossip

culture serve as evidence for this.

Numerous further examples about the protection of ideas through hiding exist

in history and shall only be mentioned for further reference: Pythagorism and

Platonism, the Apologists of early Christianity, the Orthodox Church liturgy,

natural science and political societies of the Enlightenment including Bacon

and Newton as members, Judaism, early Socialism.

Privacy in this regard serves to preserve the integrity, and often survival,

of information, ideas and opinions.

Another area of interest is privacy and the use of hiding for the sake of

other persons. To understand what role privacy plays in the context of

relationships between humans it is necessary to be aware of what communication

is.

Communication is any act of a sender to convey information to a receiver. This

involves forming signs - distinguishable and perceivable features - into

signals - the message to be transmitted.

The choice of signs and signals by the sender and their interpretation by the

receiver depend strongly on the context, what both parties perceive about each

other, themselves and their environment.

Another part of this context is the estimation of how difficult a sign is to

be produced which has an influence on as how truthful and intentional a signal

(message) is perceived.

A proverbial example for this is "to preach water and drink wine". One

immediately understands that abstaining form wine - which is more costly than

to consume it - increases the credibility of the message (and resolves the

otherwise apparent contradiction).

Maintaining privacy, in its various forms of hiding, concealing and silence,

is such an act of communication, a sign that carries a signal.

The sign of privacy, as it shall be called for sake of clarity, can carry a

variety of signals that depend on the context of the communication, and it can

be intended for a variety of recipients.

In itself privacy is a signal that discriminates between various degrees of

relationships, excluding some potential receivers from other intended

receivers. It is thus communicating which kinds of relationship the sender

intends to have, which in turn communicates the evaluation of the receiver by

the sender.

In blunt words, it separates the receivers into special and common people in

the eyes of the sender.

The "hijab" is an example which illustrates this well. Hijab refers to a veil

worn by many muslim women as soon as they enter marriageable age. It is always

worn in public and only taken off if no non-related men are present, such as

in exclusively female meetings or in the family circle. Her husband will be

the only non-related man that will see her hair, thus keeping her hair

private.

The woman, if she chooses to wear the hijab, hereby communicates towards her

husband and all other men, that she chooses to have an exclusive intimate

relationship only with her husband and that she values her husband as being of

a special high value to her. It is a pledge of allegiance to her husband, and

a separation of herself from the availability to other men.

As can be seen in this example, hiding becomes a tool to communicate a value

perception and status of relationship in a discriminatory way.

Similar signs exist in western cultures as well. For example, the revelation

of the family's secret receipt towards the fiancee of a child serves as sign

of acceptance and inclusion into the family.

Similarly some topics of conversation are usually preserved for the close

relationship between couples, or that of good friends. This not only is a sign

of uptightness, if at all, but also a toll to show and maintain the deepness

of a special and exclusive relationship that is built on the mutual holding of

the other in high esteem.

The opposite, divulging information indiscriminately, thus communicates that

others are not held in high esteem and that the communicating party is

unwilling or unable to come to different evaluations of others.

Likewise the sharing of information with the public, if this information was

gained within a special relationship, should rightly be viewed as an act of

betrayal since it communicates that the thus damaged person is held in lower

regard than the receiving masses, even as assured of the opposite.

This hints at the reciprocity of these intimate relationships. Communicating

information, that is viewed as belonging in the private domain of friendship

or other kinds of deep and special relationship, will also signal to the

receiver that he should answer in an equally private manner as to return the

esteem granted to him as well as to save the speaker from embarrassment. It is

thus a matter of courtesy to not speak about private matters indiscriminately

since it puts the receiver into a potentially awkward situation.

However, this does not only apply to situations that imply reciprocity.

It speaks of equal disrespect of another person to make them part of an

unasked for communication of subjects that are hurtful, unpleasant or put the

recipient into a situation where he is challenged to act - if only to escape

his status of a recipient.

Instead, a communication that considers the reaction of others by using means

of privacy signals both intended and accidental recipients that the speaker

harbors respect for them.

This is even more true when the subject constitutes a tempting or harmful one

for the recipient. It shows utter disrespect if someone speaks of the

exquisite taste and warm feeling in the throat when drinking an alcoholic

beverage while a known dry alcoholic is addressed or present. It is as unwise

to flaunt with riches and have them lay around openly in the house since this

tempts the struggling housekeeper to steal out of impulse, or to communicate

without regard for potentially causing conflicts of interests in the

recipients.

Instead of hiding nothing, it is the hiding of information and actions that is

grounded in valuing and caring for others and truthfully communicating respect

and high esteem.

To conclude the use of privacy for the sake of others, one should also

consider the effects of actions on observers. As mentioned before, the

interpretation of signs as signals depends, among other things, on the

receiver's perception of the sender. This becomes relevant for the question of

privacy especially if the sender is perceived as a role model or bad example.

Here the behavior is a sign easily interpreted by the observer as sanctioning

of the action or its proscription if the action is not considered separately

from the sender.

Examples of this can be seen when bad actions of public figures are used as

justification for one's own actions, when otherwise laudable behavior is

viewed with suspicion when associated with persons of disgrace or when people

imitate celebrities even in their failures and bad judgement.

For additional consideration on privacy for the sake of others, an old book

shall be mentioned as reference: "Ueber den Umgang mit Menschen" by Freiherr

von Knigge.

The last area to examine here as an example of preserving value through hiding

is the human person itself.

At the core of this matter lies the question of what makes a person a "self"

instead of "an-other", and how this self can refer to itself over time as in

"I myself went to the park yesterday". What is this "I" or "self" we refer to,

and how does it come to be what it is instead of being something else.

There is no current consensus how to answer these questions, nor should it be

the task of this text to present and weigh the different views, nor to fully

develop a theory of personhood on its own.

Instead it will touch the process of the change of a person. How has a person

become what it is now, and how will it become what it will be in the future?

How does the process differentiate the self from another?

The popular answer is that genes, upbringing and society are the shapers of

persons, in different proportions depending on who one asks. Nevertheless

individuals are treated as moral agents, acting by decision and responsible

for the decisions made. It is a person who is punished for a crime, and not

schools, parents, evolution or society.

It is persons that are persuaded by others, asked to consider moral and

ethical categories, respected or disgraced for individual actions.

Clearly it is understood by most that a person is not shaped exclusively by

that which is not part of him, but also by himself.

Certainly genes, upbringing, society and the situative environment are

influences, but it is also the self that forms the self.

This self-forming takes place with every decision made, changing the status,

the shape of oneself, the individual path of the person through life.

Some might argue that every decision made is already and exclusively

determined by the previous state of the person and its environment, and that

as such no real decision is made because there is no choice but only the

effect of the cause which is the state of the universe.

Instead of refuting the deterministic and probabilistic denials of free will

as being ultimately self-contradictory, it shall be asserted that free will -

non-deterministic and non-probabilistic - is a required fact if rationality,

ethics and morality - all three - are in any way justifiable.

However small free will, that hard to grasp grain that tips the scales of our

decisions, might be, it plays the central role in the person becoming a Self.

For this to be effectually true, the influence of free will in the person's

decisions must be maximized so that it is will that dominates the decision in

freedom.

At that point privacy achieves its ultimate importance. Only in privacy can a

decision be contemplated in separation from the influence of other persons and

the own person, the self, actualized freely.

Hiding in privacy removes the tainting of the decision through outside

preselection of facts, outside censorship, the promise of reward and

punishment by other humans, hubris, pride and shame. Here honesty towards

one's self is possible.

It is only through and in privacy where a potential equilibrium of choices can

be discovered, just to be resolved through the action of the free will of the

Self.

If one is in any way determined to work on one's own self and aware of the

responsibility this entails, then privacy in this regard must be maintained.

Though even through giving up to develop one's self, a choice has been made

with the responsibility for it as it's consequence - except that this choice

is to be a product determined by others instead of a self.

A disregard for maintaining privacy in this area thus equals the utter

disrespect for the Self one is, and the potential selves one could become. It

is the denial and defiling of oneself as an individual person.

In conclusion the proposition is, that:

Only in privacy the "self of now" transcends itself to actualize "the self of

the future" through every decision made, integrating the "self of the past"

fully and becoming more of a Self by removing the influence of an Other.

---

In passing by it should be noted that the practice of hiding things because of

their value, especially if it the hiding of information about something, must

be subject of consideration as well.

It cannot be argued for using lies as the method of concealment, since this

would often result in doing a disfavor to the thing valued and respected. Nor

can a life of lies result in a positive development of the Self.

Instead it is the concealing of information, without replacing them with a

false statement that is communicated as the whole truth only, that should be

chosen as a means.

Which however presents another problem:

As much as the presence of a sign can be a signal, its absence can be one too.

Indeed it is the presence of some signs that can signal the meaning

communicated by other signs.

Selective privacy might as such communicate the content of what should have

been concealed.

For example, if one is asked for one's favorite color and presented with a

series of potential answers, it is the denying of the incorrect answers and

the silence towards the correct answer that communicates what was intended to

remain hidden.

It should thus be noticed, that the hiding of one thing necessitates the

hiding of other things of the same context. As a means thereof it is

preferable to keep silent instead of lying, as stated above.

---

So far, the privacy opponent's reply "I have nothing to hide because I have

nothing to fear" has been shown to be a rhetoric trap, or at least an

insufficiently contemplated cultural maxim. It has also been shown that there

exist good reasons to embrace privacy, hiding and concealment.

However, this text cannot be complete without some short answers to those,

that identify privacy and secrecy as roots of evil in society that erode every

social and political system and relationship.

Their primary argument is, that privacy encourages and facilitates all kinds

of corruption and abuse of power.

Furthermore they claim that privacy results in the disintegration of the

interpersonal bonds that hold society together.

To the first, two replies shall be given:

For one, it has long be understood that abuse of power and corruption are

systemic to power and delegation themselves, and that transparency and

accountability are mere interventions to limit the spread of these flaws at

the root of the problem.

Instead of attacking privacy as being the problem, one should think about

alternative methods of cooperation and organization that are free of these

negative systemic tendencies in themselves.

On a more shallow note it should be pointed out that the people active in

positions and offices have given up their status of private persons in

exchange to be leaders and representatives of the public - the masses.

Instead of developing themselves and their relationships they have chosen to

become instruments of the public, or at least they pretend as much.

How can such an argument against privacy then be used against the privacy of

people that remain private instead of public? This appears to be fallacious.

Towards their second argument, the "disintegration of interpersonal bonds that

hold society together", it should be be understood both what "society" is, and

what "interpersonal bonds" may refer to.

Society is not a collective of interdependent persons connected b shared

emotional states and intimacy, that would be what is commonly referred to as

"family".

Instead, society is the cooperative organization of persons that is held

together by norms of interaction and shared understanding of necessary and

useful methods of cooperation.

It is thus the actions toward society in the realm of society and not the

totality of actions and knowledge that constitute these bonds in practice.

The partaking in society is thus a voluntary, freely chosen and limited

activity by each of its members for the purpose of cooperation with all other

others in society.

Privacy only becomes erosive to societies that intend to regulate and organize

even those individual activities that neither rely nor influence all of

society. These societies are commonly identified with Totalitarism.

Instead of relying on a bonding through a shared experience off weakness and

lack of self, or directing society to be bound by the smallest - and lowest -

common denominators, a society of privacy allows for the progression of all

members to actualize higher potentials without replacing the individual person

with the collective Other of society.

Privacy thus nurtures societies that thrive for improvement.

This might even hold the potential for individual actors to integrate

justifiable norms of social interaction into their Selves through independent

contemplation and decisions instead of understanding these norms as being

imposed by an Other.

Does this hold the promise of social interaction to become more reliable and

truthful? Answering affirmative seems to be more justifiable than the

negation.

However, one warning against privacy is appropriate.

Be it a personal lifestyle or a culture of privacy, both demand personal

improvement from each partaking individual.

This is the result of privacy to allow for, and supporting of, discriminatory

relationships and the decoupling from the influence of others.

Privacy thus removes many opportunities to blame others and to excuse oneself

in light of personal error. Nevertheless, privacy also allows for many

justified second chances and true forgiveness.

In summary it can be concluded that maintaining privacy and hiding of things

serves well in preserving and expressing the values one attributes to things

and other persons.

Furthermore privacy is a necessary condition for the continual development of

the Self and the sustentation of truthful and honest interpersonal

relationships by means of communicative discrimination.

In turn, the denial of privacy must be realized to be unjustified and even

harmful. The presented arguments for the allegedly negative impact of privacy

have been found to be without merit or even supporting the strong use of

privacy in society.

The conclusion drawn is therefor that opposition to privacy as in "I hide

nothing because I have nothing to fear" cannot be a default behavior.

Instead the use and support of privacy in the form of "Because I value many

things, therefor I hide many things" should be the standard unless it clearly

needs to be abandoned for specific situations, if at all.

Author

Title

Language

Your paste - Paste your paste here

THE TREASURE WHICH IS PRIVACY
=============================

Abstract:

The Philosophy of Privacy Extremism emphasizes that privacy should be 
maintained in all situations; that if in question, privacy should be given 
preference, unless sufficient arguments to the contrary apply to the specific 
situation.

Privacy serves as a necessary condition for engaging in meaningful and 
truthful interpersonal relationships.

Furthermore privacy is a necessary condition under which a person can develop 
a self and embrace individual responsibility for decisions and actions that 
result from them.

A denial of privacy to the contrary establishes and maintains a lack and loss 
of esteem, respect and value in and for things and other persons.

Privacy should therefor be the strong standard for personal behavior, 
normative for those that thrive towards personal human positive development.

The Treasure which is Privacy
-----------------------------
The first response to someone who makes an effort to protect his privacy is 
often &quot;I have nothing to hide because I have nothing to fear&quot; - usually 
accompanied by an expression of righteous pride or the blissful presentation 
of carelessness.

As with most routine responses that have become maxims of contemporary society 
and proverbs uttered in reply to trigger words, this statement is more 
informative about the speaker than of the addressee or the subject of 
discussion.

More often than not its underlying meaning should be rephrased to read &quot;I am 
uneasy, maybe even afraid, around people that hide something&quot;. As such it 
carries the implied request to anyone hearing it, that they shall stop 
covering and hiding things to relieve the speaker of his uneasiness.

But even when taken at face value, above sentence communicates that it is the 
lack of fear that is the speakers justification for not protecting his 
privacy. Apart from the simple rejection of this statement as being false in 
the light of existing and relevant threats and the reference to the 
blissfulness of ignorance, it is the exclusiveness of fear as the proposed 
reason for privacy that warrants consideration.

The reference to fear in this context should first be understood as an 
instrument of rhetorics instead of an adequate choice of words in a balanced 
and clearheaded reasoning.
Fear refers to the emotional response to existential danger and implies the 
lack or loss of courage to confront the danger.
The sentence under analysis should thus be rephrased to read &quot;You hide things 
because you lack courage in the presence of an imagined existential threat.&quot;
It is therefor a double accusation of both cowardice and delusion.

Again it is not the focus of this analysis to show that protection of privacy 
and admitting to doing so requires a bit more courage than to repeat common 
proverbs, or that certain dangers exist that can be effectively answered by 
privacy. Nor does it need emphasis that those who protect the privacy of 
others often do so in the face of opponents that go a long way to ruin the 
names, property, freedom and sometimes even health and life of those 
courageous guards of privacy.

Instead it should be pointed out, that there are for more reasons to protect 
ones privacy, and that of others, than fear of losing freedom or life or even 
good reputation.

It is interesting to note that an old synonym for 'fear' could e awe, 
admiration or astonishment, even respect.
Worded this way, one might read above sentence as &quot;I hide nothing, because I 
admire and respect nothing.&quot; This way it becomes clear that the denial of 
privacy is often nothing but a lack of things that are valued and the demand 
that others should not value something themselves.
It thus contains the claim that nothing should be special and set apart.

Which brings us to the original meaning of the word 'private'. In Latin it 
refers to persons and things that were set apart from what would be available, 
subordinate and used by all persons - the public.

Thus giving up one's privacy, as in the sentence we discuss, entails nothing 
else but the transformation of the speaker into a not particularly important 
and indistinguishable fragment of the mass. If the speaker is really not in 
fear about anything, it would primarily refer to not fearing to become a 
nothingness in the grey mass - just a grain of dust in the crowd.
It is safe to say then, that the speaker does not value and respect himself as 
an individual human person, or that he cowardly fears to be recognized as 
such.

Leaving the analysis of the original statement one should now focus on the 
negation of the privacy opponent's reply while keeping its completed meaning 
in mind:
&quot;Because I value and respect some things, I hide some things.&quot;

Three areas shall serve as examples of preserving value through hiding:
Complex minority opinions, relationships between persons, and the human person 
itself.

Complex opinions and bodies of knowledge that are valued highly by their 
bearers are often only communicated under strict conditions to prevent 
misunderstanding, misrepresentation, confusion and disintegration. 
This is especially useful if the opinion is only held by a minority or if the 
potential audience lacks the necessary context of knowledge to integrate and 
consider the new information.
The strict conditions under which the information will be communicated serves 
herein as the boundary between public and private. The more complex, valuable 
and different from general knowledge the new information is, the stricter the 
conditions of communicating them becomes. This can be seen in various areas.
Personal political or moral opinions, especially if they are held only by a 
minority, will often not be communicated in situations that only allow 
superficial or time restrained conversation.
These situations do not allow for the speaker to present and argue for their 
position and thus risk for the information to be misunderstood and 
misrepresented later.
The consequences of this disintegration of information can be witnessed in the 
effects of hearsay that considers itself with minority groups and opinions, 
leading to widespread false myths that often cannot be corrected afterwards 
because they have become part of common knowledge.
Thus it is often favorable to conceal personal opinion and deprive the public 
of correct information if otherwise the reinforcement of false information or 
the support of slander are likely.
The quality of public and political debate as well as the celebrity and gossip 
culture serve as evidence for this.
Numerous further examples about the protection of ideas through hiding exist 
in history and shall only be mentioned for further reference: Pythagorism and 
Platonism, the Apologists of early Christianity, the Orthodox Church liturgy, 
natural science and political societies of the Enlightenment including Bacon 
and Newton as members, Judaism, early Socialism.
Privacy in this regard serves to preserve the integrity, and often survival, 
of information, ideas and opinions.

Another area of interest is privacy and the use of hiding for the sake of 
other persons. To understand what role privacy plays in the context of 
relationships between humans it is necessary to be aware of what communication 
is.
Communication is any act of a sender to convey information to a receiver. This 
involves forming signs - distinguishable and perceivable features - into 
signals - the message to be transmitted.
The choice of signs and signals by the sender and their interpretation by the 
receiver depend strongly on the context, what both parties perceive about each 
other, themselves and their environment.
Another part of this context is the estimation of how difficult a sign is to 
be produced which has an influence on as how truthful and intentional a signal 
(message) is perceived.
A proverbial example for this is &quot;to preach water and drink wine&quot;. One 
immediately understands that abstaining form wine - which is more costly than 
to consume it - increases the credibility of the message (and resolves the 
otherwise apparent contradiction).
Maintaining privacy, in its various forms of hiding, concealing and silence, 
is such an act of communication, a sign that carries a signal.
The sign of privacy, as it shall be called for sake of clarity, can carry a 
variety of signals that depend on the context of the communication, and it can 
be intended for a variety of recipients.

In itself privacy is a signal that discriminates between various degrees of 
relationships, excluding some potential receivers from other intended 
receivers. It is thus communicating which kinds of relationship the sender 
intends to have, which in turn communicates the evaluation of the receiver by 
the sender.
In blunt words, it separates the receivers into special and common people in 
the eyes of the sender.

The &quot;hijab&quot; is an example which illustrates this well. Hijab refers to a veil 
worn by many muslim women as soon as they enter marriageable age. It is always 
worn in public and only taken off if no non-related men are present, such as 
in exclusively female meetings or in the family circle. Her husband will be 
the only non-related man that will see her hair, thus keeping her hair 
private.
The woman, if she chooses to wear the hijab, hereby communicates towards her 
husband and all other men, that she chooses to have an exclusive intimate 
relationship only with her husband and that she values her husband as being of 
a special high value to her. It is a pledge of allegiance to her husband, and 
a separation of herself from the availability to other men. 
As can be seen in this example, hiding becomes a tool to communicate a value 
perception and status of relationship in a discriminatory way.

Similar signs exist in western cultures as well. For example, the revelation 
of the family's secret receipt towards the fiancee of a child serves as sign 
of acceptance and inclusion into the family.
Similarly some topics of conversation are usually preserved for the close 
relationship between couples, or that of good friends. This not only is a sign 
of uptightness, if at all, but also a toll to show and maintain the deepness 
of a special and exclusive relationship that is built on the mutual holding of 
the other in high esteem.
The opposite, divulging information indiscriminately, thus communicates that 
others are not held in high esteem and that the communicating party is 
unwilling or unable to come to different evaluations of others.
Likewise the sharing of information with the public, if this information was 
gained within a special relationship, should rightly be viewed as an act of 
betrayal since it communicates that the thus damaged person is held in lower 
regard than the receiving masses, even as assured of the opposite.

This hints at the reciprocity of these intimate relationships. Communicating 
information, that is viewed as belonging in the private domain of friendship 
or other kinds of deep and special relationship, will also signal to the 
receiver that he should answer in an equally private manner as to return the 
esteem granted to him as well as to save the speaker from embarrassment. It is 
thus a matter of courtesy to not speak about private matters indiscriminately 
since it puts the receiver into a potentially awkward situation.
However, this does not only apply to situations that imply reciprocity.
It speaks of equal disrespect of another person to make them part of an 
unasked for communication of subjects that are hurtful, unpleasant or put the 
recipient into a situation where he is challenged to act - if only to escape 
his status of a recipient.
Instead, a communication that considers the reaction of others by using means 
of privacy signals both intended and accidental recipients that the speaker 
harbors respect for them.
This is even more true when the subject constitutes a tempting or harmful one 
for the recipient. It shows utter disrespect if someone speaks of the 
exquisite taste and warm feeling in the throat when drinking an alcoholic 
beverage while a known dry alcoholic is addressed or present. It is as unwise 
to flaunt with riches and have them lay around openly in the house since this 
tempts the struggling housekeeper to steal out of impulse, or to communicate 
without regard for potentially causing conflicts of interests in the 
recipients.
Instead of hiding nothing, it is the hiding of information and actions that is 
grounded in valuing and caring for others and truthfully communicating respect 
and high esteem.

To conclude the use of privacy for the sake of others, one should also 
consider the effects of actions on observers. As mentioned before, the 
interpretation of signs as signals depends, among other things, on the 
receiver's perception of the sender. This becomes relevant for the question of 
privacy especially if the sender is perceived as a role model or bad example.
Here the behavior is a sign easily interpreted by the observer as sanctioning 
of the action or its proscription if the action is not considered separately 
from the sender.
Examples of this can be seen when bad actions of public figures are used as 
justification for one's own actions, when otherwise laudable behavior is 
viewed with suspicion when associated with persons of disgrace or when people 
imitate celebrities even in their failures and bad judgement.
For additional consideration on privacy for the sake of others, an old book 
shall be mentioned as reference: &quot;Ueber den Umgang mit Menschen&quot; by Freiherr 
von Knigge.

The last area to examine here as an example of preserving value through hiding 
is the human person itself.
At the core of this matter lies the question of what makes a person a &quot;self&quot; 
instead of &quot;an-other&quot;, and how this self can refer to itself over time as in 
&quot;I myself went to the park yesterday&quot;. What is this &quot;I&quot; or &quot;self&quot; we refer to, 
and how does it come to be what it is instead of being something else.
There is no current consensus how to answer these questions, nor should it be 
the task of this text to present and weigh the different views, nor to fully 
develop a theory of personhood on its own.

Instead it will touch the process of the change of a person. How has a person 
become what it is now, and how will it become what it will be in the future? 
How does the process differentiate the self from another?

The popular answer is that genes, upbringing and society are the shapers of 
persons, in different proportions depending on who one asks. Nevertheless 
individuals are treated as moral agents, acting by decision and responsible 
for the decisions made. It is a person who is punished for a crime, and not 
schools, parents, evolution or society.
It is persons that are persuaded by others, asked to consider moral and 
ethical categories, respected or disgraced for individual actions.
Clearly it is understood by most that a person is not shaped exclusively by 
that which is not part of him, but also by himself.
Certainly genes, upbringing, society and the situative environment are 
influences, but it is also the self that forms the self.
This self-forming takes place with every decision made, changing the status, 
the shape of oneself, the individual path of the person through life.

Some might argue that every decision made is already and exclusively 
determined by the previous state of the person and its environment, and that 
as such no real decision is made because there is no choice but only the 
effect of the cause which is the state of the universe.

Instead of refuting the deterministic and probabilistic denials of free will 
as being ultimately self-contradictory, it shall be asserted that free will - 
non-deterministic and non-probabilistic - is a required fact if rationality, 
ethics and morality - all three - are in any way justifiable.
However small free will, that hard to grasp grain that tips the scales of our 
decisions, might be, it plays the central role in the person becoming a Self.

For this to be effectually true, the influence of free will in the person's 
decisions must be maximized so that it is will that dominates the decision in 
freedom. 
At that point privacy achieves its ultimate importance. Only in privacy can a 
decision be contemplated in separation from the influence of other persons and 
the own person, the self, actualized freely.
Hiding in privacy removes the tainting of the decision through outside 
preselection of facts, outside censorship, the promise of reward and 
punishment by other humans, hubris, pride and shame. Here honesty towards 
one's self is possible.
It is only through and in privacy where a potential equilibrium of choices can 
be discovered, just to be resolved through the action of the free will of the 
Self.

If one is in any way determined to work on one's own self and aware of the 
responsibility this entails, then privacy in this regard must be maintained.
Though even through giving up to develop one's self, a choice has been made 
with the responsibility for it as it's consequence - except that this choice 
is to be a product determined by others instead of a self. 
A disregard for maintaining privacy in this area thus equals the utter 
disrespect for the Self one is, and the potential selves one could become. It 
is the denial and defiling of oneself as an individual person.

In conclusion the proposition is, that: 
Only in privacy the &quot;self of now&quot; transcends itself to actualize &quot;the self of 
the future&quot; through every decision made, integrating the &quot;self of the past&quot; 
fully and becoming more of a Self by removing the influence of an Other.

---

In passing by it should be noted that the practice of hiding things because of 
their value, especially if it the hiding of information about something, must 
be subject of consideration as well.
It cannot be argued for using lies as the method of concealment, since this 
would often result in doing a disfavor to the thing valued and respected. Nor 
can a life of lies result in a positive development of the Self.
Instead it is the concealing of information, without replacing them with a 
false statement that is communicated as the whole truth only, that should be 
chosen as a means.
Which however presents another problem:
As much as the presence of a sign can be a signal, its absence can be one too. 
Indeed it is the presence of some signs that can signal the meaning 
communicated by other signs.
Selective privacy might as such communicate the content of what should have 
been concealed.
For example, if one is asked for one's favorite color and presented with a 
series of potential answers, it is the denying of the incorrect answers and 
the silence towards the correct answer that communicates what was intended to 
remain hidden.
It should thus be noticed, that the hiding of one thing necessitates the 
hiding of other things of the same context. As a means thereof it is 
preferable to keep silent instead of lying, as stated above.

---

So far, the privacy opponent's reply &quot;I have nothing to hide because I have 
nothing to fear&quot; has been shown to be a rhetoric trap, or at least an 
insufficiently contemplated cultural maxim. It has also been shown that there 
exist good reasons to embrace privacy, hiding and concealment.
However, this text cannot be complete without some short answers to those, 
that identify privacy and secrecy as roots of evil in society that erode every 
social and political system and relationship.

Their primary argument is, that privacy encourages and facilitates all kinds 
of corruption and abuse of power.
Furthermore they claim that privacy results in the disintegration of the 
interpersonal bonds that hold society together.

To the first, two replies shall be given:
For one, it has long be understood that abuse of power and corruption are 
systemic to power and delegation themselves, and that transparency and 
accountability are mere interventions to limit the spread of these flaws at 
the root of the problem.
Instead of attacking privacy as being the problem, one should think about 
alternative methods of cooperation and organization that are free of these 
negative systemic tendencies in themselves.
On a more shallow note it should be pointed out that the people active in 
positions and offices have given up their status of private persons in 
exchange to be leaders and representatives of the public - the masses.
Instead of developing themselves and their relationships they have chosen to 
become instruments of the public, or at least they pretend as much.
How can such an argument against privacy then be used against the privacy of 
people that remain private instead of public? This appears to be fallacious.

Towards their second argument, the &quot;disintegration of interpersonal bonds that 
hold society together&quot;, it should be be understood both what &quot;society&quot; is, and 
what &quot;interpersonal bonds&quot; may refer to.
Society is not a collective of interdependent persons connected b shared 
emotional states and intimacy, that would be what is commonly referred to as 
&quot;family&quot;.
Instead, society is the cooperative organization of persons that is held 
together by norms of interaction and shared understanding of necessary and 
useful methods of cooperation.
It is thus the actions toward society in the realm of society and not the 
totality of actions and knowledge that constitute these bonds in practice.
The partaking in society is thus a voluntary, freely chosen and limited 
activity by each of its members for the purpose of cooperation with all other 
others in society.
Privacy only becomes erosive to societies that intend to regulate and organize 
even those individual activities that neither rely nor influence all of 
society. These societies are commonly identified with Totalitarism.
Instead of relying on a bonding through a shared experience off weakness and 
lack of self, or directing society to be bound by the smallest - and lowest - 
common denominators, a society of privacy allows for the progression of all 
members to actualize higher potentials without replacing the individual person 
with the collective Other of society.
Privacy thus nurtures societies that thrive for improvement.
This might even hold the potential for individual actors to integrate 
justifiable norms of social interaction into their Selves through independent 
contemplation and decisions instead of understanding these norms as being 
imposed by an Other.
Does this hold the promise of social interaction to become more reliable and 
truthful? Answering affirmative seems to be more justifiable than the 
negation.

However, one warning against privacy is appropriate.
Be it a personal lifestyle or a culture of privacy, both demand personal 
improvement from each partaking individual.
This is the result of privacy to allow for, and supporting of, discriminatory 
relationships and the decoupling from the influence of others.
Privacy thus removes many opportunities to blame others and to excuse oneself 
in light of personal error. Nevertheless, privacy also allows for many 
justified second chances and true forgiveness.

In summary it can be concluded that maintaining privacy and hiding of things 
serves well in preserving and expressing the values one attributes to things 
and other persons.
Furthermore privacy is a necessary condition for the continual development of 
the Self and the sustentation of truthful and honest interpersonal 
relationships by means of communicative discrimination.
In turn, the denial of privacy must be realized to be unjustified and even 
harmful. The presented arguments for the allegedly negative impact of privacy 
have been found to be without merit or even supporting the strong use of 
privacy in society.

The conclusion drawn is therefor that opposition to privacy as in &quot;I hide 
nothing because I have nothing to fear&quot; cannot be a default behavior.
Instead the use and support of privacy in the form of &quot;Because I value many 
things, therefor I hide many things&quot; should be the standard unless it clearly 
needs to be abandoned for specific situations, if at all.

Create Shorturl - Create a shorter url that redirects to your paste?

Private - Private paste aren't shown in recent listings.

Delete After - When should we delete your paste?

The Treasure which is Privacy

Reply to "The Treasure which is Privacy"