|
|
“PRIVACY AND UTOPIA” A MUST READ TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO EXIST IN A POST-PRIVACY WORLD
In a world of rapidly advancing technologies that integrate so closely with every aspect of life, privacy is harder to obtain, yet more important than ever.
Privacy advocate and expert Gabriel Custodiet, host of the always informative Watchman Privacy podcast, has a new book which lays out the problems of the modern surveillance state, and offers insights on how to confront and approach living in that reality, while retaining fundamental privacy rights.
Privacy and Utopia: A History explores the evolving concept of privacy and its intricate relationship with decentralization.
Custodiet argues that the average understanding of privacy doesn’t take into account all the implications and ramifications surrounding the impacts on our lives.
Interestingly, he suggests that just focusing on obtaining “privacy” as a goal might not be the best way to achieve significant change, since the problems surrounding it encompass much more than just waging that kind of defensive battle.
Privacy Laws, and Privacy as an Essential Attribute of Humanness
Custodiet observes that privacy is best understood as a byproduct of decentralization, flourishing in societies that value individual freedom and limited central planning.
Acknowledging confusion and fuzzy thinking surrounding the term, he emphasizes privacy as a social concept that involves balancing hidden and exposed aspects of oneself while participating in society.
Custodiet spends some time critiquing legal definitions of privacy, and detailing the inherent contradiction of relying on government institutions to protect privacy.
The EU’s so-called GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) technology laws serve as a case in point for Custodiet’s analysis.
Concerning the limits of the law in providing real privacy, Custodiet writes:
This lauded “privacy” law was supposedly enacted to protect the privacy of EU citizens in various ways, and privacy is bestowed by the government to those who, necessarily, can prove they qualify for such protection via citizenship. In other words, for the GDPR to apply to Emil [an example citizen used to illustrate Custodiet’s points] in France the government must know that Emil is a citizen, which means that Emil must already have appropriate documentation: passports, state IDs, birth documents, addresses, job records, perhaps DNA or fingerprinting, and all of the other paraphernalia that today proves one’s identity in the eyes of the state. But this is not all. Should Emil invade the privacy of another European he can expect to be exposed by policing agencies and in court, where even more will be revealed about him, and this time for the public record. Ruth Gavison is correct in saying that “the typical privacy claim is not a claim for noninterference by the state at all. It is a claim for state interference in the form of legal protection against other individuals.”
A legal right to privacy assumes that only the government can provide it. And yet, privacy did not so much need legal protection during an era of limited and relatively innocuous pre-1900 governments, especially in the United States and Britain. The reason why the term privacy is so rare until the twentieth century is not because it is an invented neoliberal construct, as historians such as Sarah Igo have suggested,[15] but because privacy was not so explicitly needed until the twentieth century. The decline of privacy in recent decades is precisely the result of offloading privacy onto the state, which in its vast surveillance and power can promise a person a legal right to sue his neighbor—whose name he doesn’t even know—for trespassing on his property and violating his private space.[16]
While acknowledging the influence of time and culture on privacy, Privacy and Utopia: A History asserts the existence of an enduring and inherent desire for privacy, rooted in the fundamental reality of the individual self.
He notes that what some historians and political philosophers miss concerning lack of discussion of privacy in earlier periods, was the impact of modernity itself encroaching on basic privacy previously taken for granted:
Modernity brought with it the privacy-eroding phenomena of the state, the technological revolution, urbanization, forensics, the globe shrinking combustion and steam engines, airplanes, and various forms of mass surveillance, all of which would make privacy increasingly difficult to attain and consequently something to be named, defined, and desired.
The Relationship of Privacy to Decentralization
Privacy and Utopia: A History posits Decentralization as a key factor in understanding privacy. Custodiet references the works of libertarian philosophers like Friedrich Hayek, who champion decentralized systems that respect individual decision-making and limit the need for extensive personal data. The rise of blockchain technology and the cypherpunk movement further exemplify the potential of decentralized systems to enhance privacy in the digital age.
The author outlines the history, as well as the philosophical tenets of Decentralization, noting that this form of social organization is as old as humanity itself.
The term gained prominence after the French Revolution, Custodiet notes, in opposition to the centralized model of governance championed by Napoleon.
The United States serves as a prime historical example of decentralization, where local governance balanced and often reigned in comparison to federal powers and jurisdiction.
In this decentralized framework, individuals could participate in society without revealing extensive personal information to the government.
20th century Libertarian philosophers like Friedrich Hayek explored the link between decentralization and freedom, notes Custodiet. Hayek emphasized the efficiency and effectiveness of decentralized systems, and conversely pointed out that centralized systems often fail, because they cannot fully grasp the complexities of individual knowledge and decision-making.
Custodiet credits the internet and crypto technology with revitalizing interest in decentralization and privacy. He points out that the cypherpunk movement recognized the internet’s potential for anonymous participation, while blockchain technology enables secure and transparent transactions without the need for intermediaries.
But he acknowledges that the modern era has been progressively dominated by a surge in centralist philosophies, typified by figures like political leaders like Mussolini, and popular intellectuals like H.G. Wells.
Centralists advocated for planned societies and greater state intervention, viewing privacy as a potential hindrance to progress. This centralizing approach often stemmed from a belief in the malleability of human nature and a desire to solve perceived societal problems through top-down solutions.
The Era of Knowing
Privacy and Utopia: A History also marks the late 19th and early 20th centuries as a pivotal period of advancing scientific inquiry and growing interest in centralizing knowledge and social control.
Figures like Francis Galton, along with many others, exemplified the era’s quest for quantification and its implications for social policy.
In The Trends Journal, we have previously detailed Howard Scott’s coining of the term Technocracy in the 1920’s, and his vision for a comprehensively technocrat gauged and managed society. (See “THE FORGOTTEN STORY OF TECHNOCRACY’S FOUNDING FATHER,” 22 Mar 2022.)
Scott, whose vision inspired and was greatly expanded by Klaus Schwab and others, saw granular acquisition and leveraging of data and knowledge of all social activities, inputs and outputs, as necessary to optimizing providing for the needs and wants of modern society.
Custodiet in his book points to how the rise of statistics, psychology, and other disciplines fueled a desire to understand and shape human behavior, often with the aim of improving society through centralized planning.
The tension between centralization and decentralization in this era is evident in the works of influential writers. H.G. Wells, a prominent advocate for centralization, envisioned a world where individual autonomy was subordinate to the collective good. His scientific romances and sociopolitical writings reflected a belief in the need for a scientifically managed society, echoing the centralizing tendencies of the time.
The Welfare-Warfare State and the Birth of Dystopia
The book makes the link between loss of privacy and the rise of the modern welfare state.
Custodiet examines the utopianism associated with the aspirations to birth an all-providing—and increasingly all-powerful—state, exploring the rise of the welfare state and its connection to utopian and dystopian thought.
He notes H.G. Wells’ vision of a planned utopia in “A Modern Utopia” inadvertently sparked the emergence of dystopian literature, which challenged the assumptions of centralized control and its impact on individual freedom.
The works of Joseph Conrad, particularly “The Secret Agent,” offered a counterpoint to Wellsian collectivism, emphasizing the dangers of sacrificing individual liberty for the sake of utopian ideals. The dystopian genre, exemplified by works like “Brave New World” and “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” further explored the themes of privacy, bodily autonomy, and the potential for totalitarian control in centralized societies.
To conclude, Privacy and Utopia: A History offers a comprehensive exploration of privacy, tracing its evolution and its complex relationship with decentralization.
It provides valuable insights into the ongoing struggle to balance individual autonomy with collective well-being in an increasingly interconnected world.
Note: Also check out my recent appearance on Gabriel’s Watchman Privacy podcast, in the episode titled “Simply Men.”