Privacy as a Commodity

[Michael Edward Marotta <mercury@well.sf.ca.us>]

SOME OBSERVATIONS AND THOUGHTS ON PRIVACY AS A COMMODITY
by Michael E. Marotta <mercury@well.sf.ca.us> 
 
About a year ago, maybe less, Kevin Kelly suggested that privacy 
is or could be a commodity.  It was on The Well in the EFF 
Conference on another topic entirely.  He just dropped this bomb.  
I suggested a Loompanics article and he said he didn't have time 
but that I was welcome to develop the idea.  So I proposed 
"Privacy as a Commodity" to Computers Privacy and Freedom 
(CPF94) in Chicago.
 
Frank Lloyd Wright said that privacy is the hallmark of 
civilization.  He built his houses to ensure the privacy of the 
occupants.  He pointed to the village as an environment without 
privacy.   Today we say that we live in a global village.  
Therefore, the expectation of privacy is inappropriate.  
However, there is a lot of history between the first permanent 
settlement today's worldwide community.  Merchant princes graced 
several ages.  Metropolitan and cosmopolitan cities developed new 
patterns of interaction.  
 
Quite likely, the demand for privacy is relatively recent.  There 
is a quote from Leonardo da Vinci: "When you are alone you are 
all your own."   A brief look the pre-Socratics (ed., Honderich) 
reveals no discussions even remotely approaching "natural rights" 
from which privacy would be deduced or infered.  Plato's 
"Republic" is well known.  Tonight, discussing the ancient world 
with another numismatist, he pointed out that accumulations of 
wealth were virtually impossible before Roman Law.  The Athenians 
(and others) would ostracize anyone simply for being personally 
successful and therefore a potential threat.  Neither of us could 
identify the general who defeated the Persians and was rewarded 
with exile.  In such an environment, a plea for privacy would be 
ludicrous or even lunatic. 
 
We have the saying in English: "A man's home is his castle."  The 
Magna Carta (1215) had many provisions limiting the power of the 
crown and upholding the rights of free people (somewhat different 
for men than woman).  Typical of them is this: "No free man shall 
be taken or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in 
any way ruined, nor will we go or send against him, except by the 
lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land."   
 
That sentiment continues today.  However, force of arms is not 
the appropriate medium for securing your expectations of privacy.  
The Magna Carta limited the power of the state.  It did not 
address problems of peer review and peer pressure.  The best
arrangements we have that work among equals are agoric.  The 
marketplace depends on voluntary agreements for personal profit.  
The successful merchant doesn't argue religion with the client. 
("Religion" of course includes art, politics, sports and anything 
else not proximate to supply, demand and price.)  In this sense, 
privacy is inherent in the market. 
 
Today, however, we buy and sell information about people.  If you 
buy a new automobile, you are a potential client for insurance, 
if not for a Caribbean vacation.  Since the problem is agoric, 
the solution must be agoric:  you will have to invest in objects 
or processes that show their return in increased privacy for you.
 
It is possible that there is another set of solutions.  There may 
be something beyond politics and the market.  For instance, it is 
possible that a philosophical revolution will cause us to freely 
give information we now hide if we choose to merge with the Great 
All.  No doubt still other paths exist.   Be that as it may, for 
now, market solutions seem the best way to address problems in 
privacy.