Doing away with privacy

[Jason Thompson]

Someone on the BBC News magazine is arguing that we should do away with privacy, because 'if we act in a way that is true to who we are no-one can ever shame or blackmail us', or words to that effect.

So, should we?

[Paul Monk]

Its an interesting idea but it makes a big assumption. That we are happy with what we are and what we do. Until everybody is this could never work.
It also assumes that things we say and do will be under our control which is true when they're in our domain, but as we see in the media, people are all too happy to take things you say and do and repeat them out of context, or make inaccurate assumptions about you.

[Jason Thompson]

It also makes the big assumption that what you do is considered acceptable by everyone else. Does it really make sense to talk about abolishing privacy in a culture where teachers have been suspended or fired because they have pictures on social network sites of them drinking alocohol in a pub, or where politicians have their suitability called into question over the fact that in their teens they experimented with drugs, or where outcry follows revelations about sex lives, or where being arrested on suspicion of a crime is enough to get your face plastered over everything even before any kind of trial has taken place?

[Si Hunt]

So in other words, be perfect. Simple. Why didn't we think of it before?

Si.

[Rob McCow]

The Comments Box is often the highlight of these kinds of articles:

This woman talks complete balls (and apparently gets paid for it), no wonder our country is finished. I have to ask, who in the BBC gave her airtime and why? Shouldn't we alll just be able to find her on Google anyway?

Sometimes we humans NEED privacy. Without privacy our race will fail spectacularly. We should be able to choose what we reveal to the world. It's our right.

Another bonkers viewpoint, arguing a point for the sake of it!

As if our lives and the privacy we hold dear can be valued against the constraints that the privacy rules that are bestowed on it in our Farcebook profile are similar or indeed the same as those we otherwise uphold in the real world!

Dear-oh-dear!-oh-dear! GET A LIFE!!!

....perhaps Ms Gallop would also like to publish her bank account details on her web site including the account number and sort code and any personal passwords. Also her credit card number and PIN.

And more than quite a few of:

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Cindy Gallop says:

Now in a world of transparency, I am essentially unblackmail-able. I'm unblackmail-able because I have a secondary venture called Make Love Not Porn, and I launched it at the TED conference [organisation that promotes ideas] in 2009.

Once you have stood up on the stage at TED and announced that you have sex with younger men, no-one can ever shame or embarrass you ever again. So I live my life completely in the open, and that is an enormously stress free and relaxing way to be.

You don't think she might be proud of the fact that she has sex with younger men, do you? Why doesn't she tell us which younger men she's had it off with? What are their favourite positions? Etc....

Everyone has problems and secrets, and everyone says bad things about other people from time to time, sometimes for good reasons. There are a hundred reasons why privacy is an important part of our society, I reckon.

[Anthony Williams]

The UK adheres to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states:

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Obviously, this has, in the past, been widely-cited as a way that illegal immigrants win appeals to stay in the UK - the right to a family life. However, the oft-forgotten part of this law is that it enshrines the right to a private life.

In the US, there's nothing quite so simply spelled out, although there have been many cases of people suing over "invasion of privacy". The common definitions of this, by US Tort Law are usually cited as follows:

1. Intrusion of solitude: physical or electronic intrusion into one's private quarters.
2. Public disclosure of private facts: the dissemination of truthful private information which a reasonable person would find objectionable
3. False light: the publication of facts which place a person in a false light, even though the facts themselves may not be defamatory.
4. Appropriation: the unauthorized use of a person's name or likeness to obtain some benefits.

Humans, by their nature, are fairly solitary beings. The largest number of people that any normal Western human being might live with is 3 others. Of course, there are exceptions to this, but the average family size in the Western world is 4.

But, by this solitary nature, we like our privacy. We don't want Mrs Jones next door to know our business - whether it's the fact that you're a massive Doctor Who fan, or that you attend drunken orgies once a month. Privacy is a basic right - and not one that we should give up.

[Si Hunt]

I don't really get the article. She starts off by saying she has this radical solution which is to be open about everything. She then spends the rest of it telling us "to lie" and how to fabricate the ideal first impression of yourself via specially constructed websites etc.

Si.