What it means to ‘Not believe in privacy’
Supposedly, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg does not believe in privacy, if off-the-record interviews with unnamed sources are to be believed. (Yes, they should probably be believed.)
What does it mean to “not believe in privacy”? I don’t know Zuckerberg. We’ve never spoken. But I suspect what he means by this is a sincere belief in the power of openness and transparency to transform our society. Which is a belief I also hold, which is why I sometimes describe myself as “anti-privacy.”
It’s tied into a principle espoused before by people like federal judge Richard Posner — that privacy provides cover for people to conceal negative information about themselves in order to take advantage of others. (Online commentary is one example. Anonymous message boards often become hate-filled cesspools where unknown commentators wage personal attacks and spew racist and misogynistic venom. People write things there that they would never say if their identities were disclosed.)
It’s tied into an appreciation for the leveling of hierarchies, as you know as much about your boss as he or she knows about you, once you friend each other on Facebook. (Zuckerberg, a highly successful, Harvard-educated entrepreneur, who may become the world’s youngest nonhereditary billionaire when his company goes public, experienced this leveling when he eliminated the privacy settings on his own Facebook account. He had drinking shots and other unflattering photos — dressed in pajamas, clinging to a teddy bear for example. In a privacy-less world, the stigma attached to these sorts of things will fall away, because we’ll all be tagged in some kind of embarrassing photo, depending on what our vices are, be they a Rock Band obsession, beer pong, or teddy bears.)
And it’s tied into a desire to be recognized. We want attention paid to how we move through the world and we want to get feedback, be it positive or negative. That’s part of the explanation behind “Tweet What You Eat” and “Blippy,” the credit card purchase sharing site.
Through abdicating our privacy, and embracing the openness of the Internet, we actually wield greater control over our reputations online. A personal blog will likely rank higher than an embarrassingly slow marathon time that a race organizer unkindly catalogued.
And we work hard to eradicate one another’s privacy. We are intrusive. It’s human nature. Stronger than our desire for privacy is our curiosity and our desire to know about, connect to, and communicate with one another.
At the same time, when I sign into Facebook and get this message, it pisses me off:
Uncheck any Page you don’t want to link to. Linking to education and work Pages may also create additional Pages, such as for your major or job title. If you don’t link to any Pages, these sections on your profile will be empty. By linking your profile to Pages, you will be making these connections public.
I don’t want to be strong-armed into giving up my privacy. And neither does Mark Zuckerberg. He may say he doesn’t believe in privacy, but go check out his Facebook page. He keeps both his list of friends and his events calendar private.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kashmir Hill. Kashmir Hill said: What it means to 'Not believe in privacy' http://tinyurl.com/2absfeg @trueslant [...]
I think there’s a separate issue- “Zuck” is extremely disingenuous when he says he doesn’t believe in privacy as is clearly visible with his own account. Clearly this has been a “long con” with the gradual manipulation of privacy settings.
Facebook has badly exploited their users and is rapidly turning from a social network service to a social engineering attack. We have seen too many examples of this over the past few months. Like the subprime collapse, it’s all to easy to blame the customers here, but you have to question what kind of controls are needed for an industry where customers routinely become victims.
I don’t quite see why the vitriol encouraged by anonymous postings means the desire for privacy is an inherently bad thing. When you write something, you should be willing to put your name on it. That doesn’t mean you also want everyone, including future employers, to see pictures of you drunk at a party. And, if we all have those pictures online, it just means there will be more opportunity for future employers and others to see moments we don’t want them to see.
About the desire to be recognized–no, we don’t all want attention paid to how we move through this world. Kids want that. Excuse me for saying this, but when you grow up, that is not important.
Kash,
The people who really don’t believe in privacy are the ones with reality shows. People with blogs and FB pages sharing thoughts and pictures I consider broadcasters. Like NBC or CBS you are producing “content” that is distributed to the public. Broadcasting and not believing in privacy can feel like the same thing but can be totally unrelated.
[...] What it means to 'Not believe in privacy' – Kashmir Hill – The Not … [...]
[...] What it means to 'Not believe in privacy' – Kashmir Hill – The Not … [...]
You’re absolutely right, there is no more privacy. But this isn’t because we’ve transcended it into some psyche-exposed utopia. Our privacy has for the most part been stripped from us, primarily as a tactic of class warfare.
We can be “exposed” in a couple of ways that come to mind. We can “expose ourselves” to the world voluntarily. Or we can be “exposed” against our will, when otherwise we have the expectation of privacy. I don’t understand how FB gets away with retroactive changes to privacy statements- aren’t these contracts?
Imagine if a hotel decides to place in the fine print that activities within the room can be monitored- and that they now exercise the rights to share any and all all prior activities which have been monitored with third parties without your disclosure– i.e. if the release of those Erin Andrews videos were considered retroactively legal.
The only potential good to come from this the recognition of a right of privacy.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] 5 hours agoWhat it means to 'Not believe in privacy'Kashmir HillThe Not-So Private Parts3 hours agoProblems for Apple? Probably not but…Colin [...]
[...] What It Means To ‘Not Believe In Privacy’ – True/Slant [...]
Anybody who closes their bathroom door while they do their business is a privacy advocate, regardless of what they say publicly.
You could argue here that privacy works both ways- I may value your privacy in the bathroom even far more than you do.
In response to another comment. See in context »I am on record that I am entitled to some privacy, I couldn’t disagree more. I reveal to who I want, which is not many, I like it that way.
I have no problem with controls on bad people doing rotten things behind anonymity such as they so in some places, I think it is England, if you threaten people 3 times you loose your IP address for good I think. However, that’s apples and oranges, privacy is like an unlisted phone number, your entitled to that.
Like REM sleep, every person needs at some point, to be able to think, say or write some vile things that go thorough their head… otherwise we would just go crazy.
Not to say I like reading that stuff on line, but as a society, it needs to happen or things would be worse IMO. It used to happen at the bar on gossiping with the neighbor, now you can just say it online…
Zuckerberg I am sure is just falling into the it is good for you but not for me camp. Easy to do when you have the power to protect yourself and can benefit from collecting others information.
“In a privacy-less world, the stigma attached to these sorts of things will fall away, because we’ll all be tagged in some kind of embarrassing photo, depending on what our vices are [...]“
Well said. An excellent post.
I think the main obstacle to the above is the fear of retaliation or just being treated differently by (often hypocritical) employers, co-workers, and family members. Justified by plenty of anecdotal evidence of employees being dismissed for what they did in their private lives.
(In the sci-fi novel The Light of Other Days by Arthur C. Clarke and Stephen Baxter, technology rips down the privacy barrier for everyone literally overnight, and the authors explore how that might affect inhibitions in very interesting ways.)
[...] CEO Mark Zuckerberg supposedly doesn’t believe in privacy. So I guess he won’t mind the Business Insider’s Nicholas Carlson reprinting this private [...]