I recently read a very good article on nymag.com about the privacy as the new generation gap. Although the article focuses on the generation gap aspect of the privacy debate, probably the most interesting thing about this article to me is that it makes a very strong case for the viewpoint that no one has any privacy anyhow, which was most famously summed up by Scott McNealy. In short, the article challenges the assumption that privacy, specifically online privacy, is important. This is a basic assumption that I have held virtually unquestioned in my own mind, and the article made me think about it.

It’s an extreme viewpoint to take, particularly because of the issues raised by the need for political protection of things like free speech. Certainly, it can be a utopian ideal if you take it far enough. For example, the lack of privacy could cause everyone to generally behave better and be more understanding of one another. Reputation becomes king in this environment. Your conscience keeps you in check when you know that everything will end up online. The reverse is also true. When everything ends up online you can spot things that are truly abnormal behavior for someone.

The problem with this utopian ideal is similar to that of Communism. The reason communism is flawed is that everyone is greedy to some extent and there’s always something to covet. The argument that privacy has been outdated or is somehow not necessary seems similarly flawed. Everyone has something they don’t want to share with the world, whether they know what it is right now or not. There’s always someone shameless enough to be unaffected by their own conscience or by threats to their reputation.

Perhaps if you are thick skinned, it won’t matter on a personal level, but in the arena of politics, being thick skinned isn’t enough. It might be easy to think about the Internet as this great equalizing environment, but it is also a bit of a misnomer. The utopian view of a world without privacy depends greatly on free speech and universal equality. These are things which are not guaranteed rights and it is possible that they could be taken away at some point in the future.

Regardless, the article brings up a great point and makes me think. In my mind, I keep going back to the signing of the Declaration of Independence as an example. The whole event becomes a sort of a chicken and egg problem. The Declaration of Independence might have only been possible because of the privacy afforded those who were plotting against the King, but it might have simply never been necessary if everyone’s private lives were displayed for all the world to see.