
The Birth and Death of Privacy - dankohn1
https://medium.com/the-ferenstein-wire/the-birth-and-death-of-privacy-3-000-years-of-history-in-50-images-614c26059e
======
_petronius
Aside from the rather obvious issues of accuracy in the related anecdotes (as
coldtea pointed out), it's a shame that the author of this piece doesn't
mention one aspect in which the rise-and-fall nature is not a full circle:
although in a tribal society you may have less privacy, there is also less
reason to fear a lack of it.

Unlike small, homogeneous groups with intimate hierarchies, modern society is
huge, the data available on your life is enormous, and the ability of someone
to hurt you with that data (be it through impersonation or accusation) or
indeed you to hurt someone else is virtually unlimited. There's no discussion
of the ways in which the potential consequences of the violation of privacy
make us more protective of it ("The Lives of Others" is a great film on the
subject).

Maybe at some point we can achieve a society where the power structures and
human relationships are such that we can again be as open again with strangers
as we once were with our immediate families/communities, and in so doing relax
about the need for strict rights of privacy. But right now the stakes are too
high.

~~~
bryanlarsen
In a small community, when one person knows something, everybody knows it. One
rumour, one false accusation and suddenly literally everybody you interact
with knows and can judge you for it.

I'd far prefer a lack of privacy in a large community than a small one.

~~~
exo762
I disagree. In small group all people who can judge you interact with you on
every day basis and they KNOW you. Also, they have all reasons to believe that
"Do to others as you would have them do to you" actually works, since judges
themselves are not hidden from judgement. The Internet, however, creates
illusion of anonymity and turns people into assholes.

On Internet twitter/tumblr/[insert social network] will rip you to pieces for
a wrong shirt.

~~~
pjc50
_rip you to pieces for a wrong shirt_

Oh, there's plenty of small communities that will do that as well. Wrong
football shirt, for example.

------
coldtea
The "silent reading / not popular" thing is an urban legend, and has been
refuted in established scholarly research. It's not even true in the famous
example about St. Augustine's teacher.

Not sure about it but "beds used to be extraordinarily expensive" seems BS
too. A bed is just some pieces of wood -- very easily made for families near
nature/woods (as was the vast majority of the population at the time they
mention).

The reason families often shared just 1 or 2 beds is because they lived in a
much confined small house, not the cost of building a bed.

~~~
ucaetano
_" The right of privacy" was coined in 1890, inspired by fears of the polaroid
camera_

First commercial instant camera was available in 1948, by Polaroid (which
itself was created in 1937).

~~~
ferenstein
i've updated the graphic. I was using the generic term for camera, which was
misleading.

------
eveningcoffee
It is not uncommon in European culture room to have mixed public saunas where
people are naked. Human bodies are regarded as natural and there is nothing
erotic or humiliating in such situation. Everyone minds their own business.

Also when I browse the web or I walk on the street, I am visible. If I enter
the shop or web page, the owner of it will take a notice. I think it is all
natural.

The situation changes when an interested third party appears who shows up keen
interests about my doings. Follows me every corner, marks down at what I look,
or what I buy, even follows me into public sauna with an intent to take
pictures of me when I am naked and all of this with a sole interest to take
advantage of me in every way possible. This is not natural, this is perverse.

This is where a normal person says: leave me alone, please respect my privacy.

------
karmacondon
The word privacy is complex and might have grown to have too many meanings.
There's privacy like not wanting people to see you naked, having sex or using
the bathroom. Then there's privacy like not sharing a living space with
several other people. Then there's privacy like online tracking and keeping
certain information from being public or easily discoverable.

People seem to use those concepts interchangeably, which only clouds the
issue. Someone from a small town might not mind sharing a living space, but
object to online tracking. Or someone could say "I have nothing to hide" in
regard to their daily communications, but still not want their showers to be
broadcast. Or an exhibitionist could have no problem with public showering,
but draw the line at sharing a bedroom with two other people.

So when people say that privacy is dying, which kind of privacy do they mean?
"All of the above" is a valid answer, but the situation is probably more
nuanced. This particular post provides an interesting view, but still lumps a
lot of concepts together.

~~~
sdfghsdhf555
The essence is control and choice. Sure, history influences attitudes, but all
the scenarios you (and the article) describe merely reflect the drive to
freedom of choice, and the practical limitations on the expression of that
drive in reality. It's not a spaghetti concept by any means, however. Privacy
on the Internet is the evolving intersection of our desire for choice and the
realities involved in achieving it.

Growing tired of choice, however, threatens more than privacy.

------
lumberjack
Let's put it another way. It's not really the death of privacy. It's the
appreciation of personal information.

A long time ago you could, if you had the means to, get an individual's life
totally mapped out and that had some value. But today you can map an
individual's life and then connect the dots between that individual's personal
data and that of the people they interact with and build a social graph. And
that is infinitely more valuable.

Now that Google and Facebook can earn up to $50 per head, they are really
motivated to eradicate online privacy.

If you wanted to and if you could afford it, you could maintain your privacy.
It would just cost exponential more than it would have cost just a few decades
ago.

------
pawpro
I think that in the context of a discussion around a subject of evolution of
privacy, it is important to remember where privacy originates. The privacy is
not an invention of human civilisation but rather the principle expression of
fundamental operation of self. Humans as probably is true for many other
creatures in animal kingdom poses an inherent harbour of privacy within our
minds. We are able to operate in as much privacy as we choose. The information
revolution, however far into the past the development of our civilisation you
choose to accept it spans, continues to expand our knowledge outwards into
scriptures, books and recently the Internet and beyond. We should choose
wisely whether to limit the plane to which we can comfortably, seamlessly and
yes privately extend the operation of self - our minds. I would hate to find
myself being only able to "think" privately inside my own skull. I think I
would be less.

Yes, given the prospects of even that fundamental barrier being breachable the
more important it is for the concept of privacy to be understood and widely
accepted.

The only universal reason to limit privacy is that of control (whatever the
motivation for such control).

------
marincounty
"More advanced health monitors used by insurers are coming, like embedded
sensors in skin and clothes that detect stress and concentration. The markers
of an early heart attack or dementia will be the same that correspond to an
argument with a spouse or if an employee is dozing off at work. No behavior
will escape categorization—which will give us unprecedented superpowers to
extend healthy life. Opting out of this tracking—if it is even possible—will
mean an early death and extremely pricey health insurance for many."

The health aspects are a long way off. Maybe when they get to the point where
they can predict a heart attact--I'm game for anything the wiz kids tell me to
strip on, or swallow.

Until that day, I want my privacy.

I want to be able to control what sites, like Google does with my information
--yea, I know it's not going to happen.

In the mean time, I can opt out of certain sites that brag about the
information they own about you, like Facebook.

Right now people don't seem to care about privacy, but that will change. It
probally won't change in certain countries, but I see a change, a small one,
in the United States.

------
spencertg1
Will there ever be a relationship of Mutually Assured Destruction between
people when it comes to abusing one anothers' privacy. i.e. if person A abuses
the use of information about individual B, then person A has the immediate
knowledge of that and ability to do the same or worse to individual B.

Therefore the temptation to manipulate or abuse private information of another
party will be limited against by the knowledge that retaliation is assured and
disproportionate.

This could work on a person-to-person level, i.e. if i use an individuals
private image for public or private purposes without consent, and it could be
used on a person-to-institution level, i.e. if an institution sells an
individuals health records without consent.

Perhaps an answer to the eternal problem of privacy is that if all private
information is open and accessible we will all be so terrified of the
retaliation that we will not abuse others private information. (although i
realise the hypocrisy of calling anything private if everyone has access to
it).

------
hacknat
The silent reading comment is very interesting. I'm currently reading
Augustine's _Confessions_ , and it's quite interesting. Augustine makes very
modern observations of a very ancient society. For example, when he first
describes Ambrose of Milan he finds it remarkable that Ambrose reads silently
rather than out loud. It seems like the norm in ancient Rome was to read out
loud, even in private.

------
peter303
Some confused people accuse young Abe Lincoln of being homo because he shared
a bed with a male housemate in his 20s. That was right around the era where
solo beds were becoming a norm instead of a luxury. Before the industrial age
it was pretty common for a whole family just to have one or two beds- parents
and childrens. And if you stayed at a hotel or army barracks you shared a bed
rack with a row of strangers.

------
awl130
*The Birth and Death of Privacy in the Western World: 3,000 Years of History Told Through 46 Images

~~~
ant6n
Except it's told via a large text with accompanying images. If you just look
at the images, you don't get the story. ;p

------
scotty79
Nothing about toilet privacy which also was technologically induced not
innate.

------
dghughes
I thought it was Aurelius Ambrosius aka Saint Ambrose who invented silent
reading around 350 CE.

