Topics: privacy

William Galston in the Wall Street Journal: “Transparency is very nearly the opposite of privacy. In the current controversy, it is a demand that the government make public matters it conducts in private and wants to keep private.

The argument for disclosure goes like this: If the government is acting in the name of the people, the people need to know what their government is doing. How else can they judge these activities? Democratic government means accountability to the public, and accountability requires disclosure. History testifies to the link between secrecy and the abuse of public power. Without disclosure, the people will find it difficult to restrain government’s excesses—most importantly, secret activities that could endanger our liberties.
Government transparency has a distinguished history. In 1795, Immanuel Kant propounded what is often called the principle of publicity: Roughly, if you cannot reveal the principle that guides your policy without undermining that policy, then the policy itself is fatally flawed from a moral point of view.
Little more than a century later, in his famous “Fourteen Points” speech about U.S. war aims and the principles that would guide the peace, President Woodrow Wilson called for “Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.”…
Yet the relation between collective security and individual liberty is not zero-sum. Because another 9/11-scale terrorist event might well lead to even more intrusive antiterrorism measures, reducing the likelihood of such an event could end up preventing serious infringements on liberty. Up to a point, liberty and security can be mutually reinforcing. But at what point do they become opposed?
This is not a judgment that can be left to experts in the executive branch. Ultimately, the people, acting through their elected representatives, must decide—and it is hard to see how they can do so unless all representatives, not just a select few, have the information they need to participate in such a decision. As we learned in the 1970s, however, public deliberation on intelligence matters is anything but cost-free.”
 

Ian Leslie in Aeon: “Our instincts for privacy evolved in tribal societies where walls didn’t exist. No wonder we are hopeless oversharers…A few years ago George Loewenstein, professor of behavioural economics at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, set out to investigate how people think about the consequences of their privacy choices on the internet. He soon concluded that they don’t….‘Thinking about online privacy doesn’t come naturally to us,’ Loewenstein told me when I spoke to him on the phone. ‘Nothing in our evolution or culture has equipped us to deal with it.’…We might be particularly prone to disclosing private information to a well-designed digital interface, making an unconscious and often unwise association between ease-of-use and safety. …This is not the only way our deeply embedded real-world instincts can backfire online. Take our rather noble instinct for reciprocity: returning a favour. If I reveal personal information to you, you’re more likely to reveal something to me. This works reasonably well when you can see my face and make a judgment about how likely I am to betray your confidence…Giving people more control over their privacy choices won’t solve these deeper problems. Indeed, Loewenstein found evidence for a ‘control paradox’. Just as many people mistakenly think that driving is safer than flying because they feel they have more control over it, so giving people more privacy settings to fiddle with makes them worry less about what they actually divulge.”