notes on “privacy: a short history”

A couple of years ago I stumbled across the book “Privacy: A Short History”, by David Vincent, and was struck at the time by just how detailed and nuanced the book was in charting how privacy has evolved with society over the ages. In the current geopolitical climate, where technology continues to be frequently abused by governments both repressive and (supposedly) progressive, I thought it was time to dust off the notes I took while I was reading Privacy and make a few comments.

My key comment is this: you should read this book. Regardless of what country you are living in, and regardless of how progressive you think your country is when it comes to privacy, Privacy should be considered essential reading, particularly in a modern context by anyone who works in information technology.

most governments love snooping Credit: Bigstock.

Many people make the fundamental mistake of thinking we have some intrinsic right to privacy. I don’t mean to say that we ought not have some right to privacy, but rather it is a fundamental mistake to believe this to be some objectively true statement. Yes, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserted that no-one should be subjected to “arbitrary interference” with their privacy, but not all governments are signatures to the declaration, and arbitrary gives governments a lot of wiggle-room to argue what they feel is just-cause. Privacy must be fought for. And it must be fought for constantly and repeatedly. The war for privacy is in fact never won; battles may be won or lost, but every new government, and every new evolution in technology results in a new battlefront being opened up. You need to start your understanding of privacy from this perspective to avoid complacency.

Privacy is by no means a modern invention, either. Vincent opens the book by recounting details of legal disputes going back to 1341 of a person complaining that neighbours could see into her garden, thereby impinging on her privacy. (The result of which were rulings in her favour, requiring neighbours to repair their windows and take appropriate actions to restore the privacy of Isabel’s garden.) But this started a common theme in the history of privacy; that being that privacy is often intimately tied to property (and therefore, in no small terms, to a sufficient level of wealth); while people might step outside for some level of privacy (e.g., for a quiet conversation where servants or family members may not be able to hear, etc.) privacy in the public sphere is significantly different compared to privacy within our own homes. Vincent wrote:

“Prosperity was not just the enabler of a desire for privacy, but in itself the driver for change. As personal wealth increased, more objects were purchased and more spaces were required to accommodate them.”

It can be argued that a recurring theme within the book is that the only guarantee we truly have for privacy (for now, at least) is to keep our thoughts and feelings solely within the space between our ears. (I would note that another continuous theme of the book is that governments and malfeasant actors will always adopt new technology that allows them to encroach on privacy – so this is not something to be permanently expected – just currently beyond the realms of modern technology.)

Privacy is, as a common thread throughout the book, intimately tied to three essential factors: (a) politics, (b) technology, and (c) wealth. Wealth is often a more disguised theme – but it sits there implicitly as the simple fact that the wealthier someone was, the more likely it was that they could take steps to secure their privacy. But this was not always guaranteed – politics and technology are by far the two deeply intertwined threads that establish the limits on privacy.

And by technology, the implication is often the practical ability to apply technology – especially in a non-detectable format. We see governments today intent on breaking encryption – allowing themselves to peer (always, supposedly, for the sake of our safety) into messages we exchange with one another, regardless of the electronic medium. This desire is not modern – merely the ability of the technology to support it. Earlier governments, earlier political masters, whether they were monarchies, republics, democracies or any other form, clearly would have liked to encroach on privacy more than they did, but they were stymied by the practicality of it. Within scant moments of national postal services springing up, opening letters in sorting houses could have been achieved, but the mundane and slow manualness of the process made it impractical at the sort of scale governments would have needed to do in order to satisfy their peeping urges. Our modern electronic systems theoretically make this much easier to achieve (if only pesky laws could be amended to ban encryption), and thus we see governments around the world gush with a reprobate’s enthusiasm about injecting themselves into every communications stream that takes place.

Humans seem to naturally aspire to privacy. Vincent makes the argument (both using modern social media examples and historical ones) that people tend to self-censor when they believe their privacy is at risk, even if they aren’t sure of the current status. This leads to privacy (or the lack thereof) often being weaponised by the state as a means to go on repugnant moral crusades that have no true moral justification – and ironically, for such moral crusades to be defeated in the courts when society reaches a level that allows citizens to fight back.

Politics is not the only attacker of privacy. Criminals of many forms recognise the value they can gain by invading the privacy of others, whether that’s via exploitation of information or outright acts of blackmail. But a third attack vector is the human predilection for gossip; the titillation of scandalous or sensitive information being revealed for public amusement is bad enough, but when tied to capitalism being able to sell such titillation to the masses, a potent additional weapon against privacy is wielded. And the tool sets of the capitalist abusers of privacy are the exact same tool sets used by governments and criminals, too.

Regardless of how well you believe you understand privacy, I’d argue that this is a book you should invest in – and take its lessons to heart. Failing to carry the fight for privacy forward in the modern age will hurt us all.

Disclaimer: All content is the work of the individual and is in no way affiliated with or representative of any employer, past or present.