Privacy can be
defined as "the quality of being secluded from the presence or view of
others" or "a state in which
one is not observed or disturbed by other people". A more general
definition would be the ability to maintain a space that can be kept away from
everyone.
Privacy has long been an underlined issue, but since the last decade and a half, the need to focus on this aspect has exponentially increased. Whether it is the government invading it's citizens' private space, or the infringement of that space by a third party, whether it is an individual's unwitting relinquishment of that private space or a transfer of the same by trickery and fraud, the major question has not been about privacy's nature and functioning, but its need. Whether it’s the naive "Nothing to hide" argument or government's favourite "But security…" argument, the fact that the question it evokes in people's head is not about privacy's accommodation in the current scenario, but about its need and existence in the very first place should be worrisome, if not alarming, to the least.
The state is the result of transference of consent, power, intent and ambition of its people, but its formation doesn't rule out the individual capacity of anyone who participated in the formation of the state. The same applies to private spaces as well. The state gives its people an ambit for exercising their individualism wherein they can make choices that may very well differ from the ruling class itself. The state while ruling, indulges in vigilance but purely as a means to uphold its part of the contract—that it will work in the best interest of its people—and thus the end goal of that vigilance is not surveillance per se but to identify and solve any anomalies and disturbances in the set fabric of the contract. Since privacy would fall under the ambit provided to individuals by the state, it becomes necessary to figure out if the vigilance is, at any point of time, working well away from its original intent to identify disturbances, to merely keeping a record of every action, behaviour and intent of individuals in their respective ambit "in hope" of finding a workaround to future disturbances as and when they occur. The problem with the aforementioned method of vigilance is that, in keeping an image of an individual's ambit, it a) nullifies the sole authority of the concerned individual as it introduces forced power sharing and b) in the state's inability to ensure objective-only analysis of that image as well as prevention of any and all form of sharing with any and all form of third party—whether by breach or otherwise—it infringes the ambit to the point of making it a public space—which by definition, is under direct control of the state—causing complete destruction of the personal nature of the ambit. The personal space thus, ceases to exist.
It now becomes important to understand the point of origin and the functioning of the two arguments that were stated in the beginning.
First, the "Nothing to hide" argument. The naivety of this argument lies in the fact that it fails to understand the necessity of the existence of the private space and that the state cannot remove the personal space, for that would amount to complete control over people's actions, which not only prevents them from making individual choices, but also forces ambitions, beliefs and ideas on them, resulting in a vessel-operating state, which contradicts the reason of the state's existence in the first place. The transference of consent and intent to form the state is to facilitate an efficient mechanism to carry out the ambitions of the people forming it, while allowing the very same people to work towards a part of that ambition on a personal level. All individual choices are thus, considered a way to fulfill the personal-level functioning of those ambitions. The state influencing the personal-level functioning of individuals, or directing or forcing it, would amount to denial of an ambit to work towards those ambitions, resulting in those ambitions becoming state-centered as opposed to being people-centered. Even as a state progresses, it is necessary to allow individuals to progress on a personal level to create a harmony between state and its people so that the resulting development is synchronized and doesn't leave anyone behind. Therefore, the reason for existence of the private space is not to hide something, but to practice something at a personal level so that it's in harmony with its larger counterpart being carried on by the state.
Privacy has long been an underlined issue, but since the last decade and a half, the need to focus on this aspect has exponentially increased. Whether it is the government invading it's citizens' private space, or the infringement of that space by a third party, whether it is an individual's unwitting relinquishment of that private space or a transfer of the same by trickery and fraud, the major question has not been about privacy's nature and functioning, but its need. Whether it’s the naive "Nothing to hide" argument or government's favourite "But security…" argument, the fact that the question it evokes in people's head is not about privacy's accommodation in the current scenario, but about its need and existence in the very first place should be worrisome, if not alarming, to the least.
The state is the result of transference of consent, power, intent and ambition of its people, but its formation doesn't rule out the individual capacity of anyone who participated in the formation of the state. The same applies to private spaces as well. The state gives its people an ambit for exercising their individualism wherein they can make choices that may very well differ from the ruling class itself. The state while ruling, indulges in vigilance but purely as a means to uphold its part of the contract—that it will work in the best interest of its people—and thus the end goal of that vigilance is not surveillance per se but to identify and solve any anomalies and disturbances in the set fabric of the contract. Since privacy would fall under the ambit provided to individuals by the state, it becomes necessary to figure out if the vigilance is, at any point of time, working well away from its original intent to identify disturbances, to merely keeping a record of every action, behaviour and intent of individuals in their respective ambit "in hope" of finding a workaround to future disturbances as and when they occur. The problem with the aforementioned method of vigilance is that, in keeping an image of an individual's ambit, it a) nullifies the sole authority of the concerned individual as it introduces forced power sharing and b) in the state's inability to ensure objective-only analysis of that image as well as prevention of any and all form of sharing with any and all form of third party—whether by breach or otherwise—it infringes the ambit to the point of making it a public space—which by definition, is under direct control of the state—causing complete destruction of the personal nature of the ambit. The personal space thus, ceases to exist.
It now becomes important to understand the point of origin and the functioning of the two arguments that were stated in the beginning.
First, the "Nothing to hide" argument. The naivety of this argument lies in the fact that it fails to understand the necessity of the existence of the private space and that the state cannot remove the personal space, for that would amount to complete control over people's actions, which not only prevents them from making individual choices, but also forces ambitions, beliefs and ideas on them, resulting in a vessel-operating state, which contradicts the reason of the state's existence in the first place. The transference of consent and intent to form the state is to facilitate an efficient mechanism to carry out the ambitions of the people forming it, while allowing the very same people to work towards a part of that ambition on a personal level. All individual choices are thus, considered a way to fulfill the personal-level functioning of those ambitions. The state influencing the personal-level functioning of individuals, or directing or forcing it, would amount to denial of an ambit to work towards those ambitions, resulting in those ambitions becoming state-centered as opposed to being people-centered. Even as a state progresses, it is necessary to allow individuals to progress on a personal level to create a harmony between state and its people so that the resulting development is synchronized and doesn't leave anyone behind. Therefore, the reason for existence of the private space is not to hide something, but to practice something at a personal level so that it's in harmony with its larger counterpart being carried on by the state.
Second, the
government's favourite "But security…" argument. The primary flaw in
this argument is that it assumes that there exists some sort of barter wherein
one can exchange privacy for security. Such a barter is neither possible nor
does it exist. The two reasons why such a barter isn't possible are because a)
there doesn't exist a reason to justify the complete demolition of the private
space and b) the primary aspect of security works on the personal level, which
wouldn't be possible if there didn't exist a private space to begin with. As mentioned before,
the existence of private space is fundamental to the existence and proper
functioning of the state. Moreover, every complete action conducted inside the
private space has a resultant product outside it, in the public space, which is
under direct control of the state. Since this resultant component of the
complete action in under constant vigilance of the state, it becomes
unnecessary to introduce vigilance inside the private space, let alone demolish
the private space completely to merge it with the public space. The vigilance
needs to evolve according to the resultant component in the public space and
learn to associate it with disturbances, as opposed to bring the private action
in the public space "in hope" of finding a disturbance.
For example, an individual participating in private research about an item on the internet or two individuals participating in a private conversation regarding a meet-up would account to the private component of the action in the private space, which when completed—an online or offline purchase of the item in the first case, or meeting of two individuals at a particular place in the second case— leads to a resultant component which exists in the public space—monetary transaction in the first case, or evidence of meeting of the two individuals in the form of CCTV footage of the place of their meeting and/or transaction records related to transportation if involved—which happens to be under direct vigilance of the state.
It is to be noted that the idea behind the state denying a private space to its individuals is to prevent the effort it would require to safeguard the private component of the actions in the private space—if the action is public, it doesn't have a private component—and the need to establish a mechanism wherein the primary right over an individual's private component is the individual's itself, so that the state doesn’t need to work on a request system to gain access to those private components if the need occurs. The problem with the aforementioned arrangement is that if the state doesn't ask for permission from individuals for the private components of their actions, the practice extends to state refusing to take permissions for accessing its people's credentials as well since the two are interwoven. If the state no longer maintains a request system for access to its people's credentials, people lose the primary right over their credentials and the credentials cease to exist in the private space and are instead transferred to the public space which is unacceptable since an individual's credentials are the most intimate component to them.
Therefore, the primary question is not about privacy's existence but about its accommodation in the current scenario by providing maximum utility to both state and its people. It thus becomes a state's primary priority to safeguard its people's privacy in every domain so that its functioning remains correct and ethical—by not being fueled by greed for money or power, but instead by need—and people retain a primary ownership over what is rightfully theirs.
For example, an individual participating in private research about an item on the internet or two individuals participating in a private conversation regarding a meet-up would account to the private component of the action in the private space, which when completed—an online or offline purchase of the item in the first case, or meeting of two individuals at a particular place in the second case— leads to a resultant component which exists in the public space—monetary transaction in the first case, or evidence of meeting of the two individuals in the form of CCTV footage of the place of their meeting and/or transaction records related to transportation if involved—which happens to be under direct vigilance of the state.
It is to be noted that the idea behind the state denying a private space to its individuals is to prevent the effort it would require to safeguard the private component of the actions in the private space—if the action is public, it doesn't have a private component—and the need to establish a mechanism wherein the primary right over an individual's private component is the individual's itself, so that the state doesn’t need to work on a request system to gain access to those private components if the need occurs. The problem with the aforementioned arrangement is that if the state doesn't ask for permission from individuals for the private components of their actions, the practice extends to state refusing to take permissions for accessing its people's credentials as well since the two are interwoven. If the state no longer maintains a request system for access to its people's credentials, people lose the primary right over their credentials and the credentials cease to exist in the private space and are instead transferred to the public space which is unacceptable since an individual's credentials are the most intimate component to them.
For example
if a state maintained a biometric database of its individuals and didn’t
establish a request system for access to that biometric data and didn’t
maintain a mechanism in place to check for correct and ethical usage of the
biometric data, the state not only denies people the right over their own
biometric data, it doesn't even provide them a mechanism to check if their
credentials have been infringed. A case-by-case access on request and a
checking system for correct and ethical usage allows people to retain the right
over their own credentials—since their biometric data is accessed only after
passing through a request system that verifies the need to do so, thus
maintaining the sanctity of the private credentials—and simultaneously allows
the state to work on the disturbances while ensuring all individuals their
private safety. If the aforementioned procedure isn't followed, the private
space of all individuals is permanently infringed since they no longer possess
the primary ownership of their most intimate component-their biometric data. With
no rights whatsoever, the concept of security on personal level ceases to
exist. If people don't feel secure on personal level as a result of demolition
of their private space, there cannot exist security on a public level either.
The correct method of providing security is by ensuring proper functioning of
privacy as opposed to rendering it useless i.e. the moment all individuals no
longer have a private state, the government denies them security on a personal
level and subsequently on the public level as well.
Therefore, the primary question is not about privacy's existence but about its accommodation in the current scenario by providing maximum utility to both state and its people. It thus becomes a state's primary priority to safeguard its people's privacy in every domain so that its functioning remains correct and ethical—by not being fueled by greed for money or power, but instead by need—and people retain a primary ownership over what is rightfully theirs.
