One question that I am often asked when speaking to groups about the digital revolution is “what about privacy?” This is usually in relation to social media and social networking. Privacy comes from the Latin word privatus:
In Roman law, the Latin adjective privatus makes a legal distinction between that which is “private” and that which is publicus, “public” in the sense of pertaining to the Roman people (populus Romanus).
This question fascinates me. Privacy is such a recent invention and many people seem to be unaware of this. Also there is an important distinction to be made between privacy and confidentiality. Since time immemorial societies have acknowledged that some kinds of information are confidential. A good historical example of this is the Catholic Church keeping the revelations made during their rite of confession confidential.
However, until very recent times – during the late twentieth century – privacy was an aberration. Anchorites had privacy, but most people lived cheek by jowl with others for their entire lives. This is important because privacy is predicated on separation. It is predicated on a physical separation between people – it is enabled by the spaces in between individuals. If there are no spaces between individuals then privacy is very hard to achieve (or even to conceive).
In the past even the most wealthy and most exalted personages did not experience privacy. Kings and queens lived surrounded day and night by their courtiers. In the days before genetic testing even queens gave birth in front of their court to ensure veracity.
Historically nobles were attended, bathed and dressed by their servants. The servants lived together in crowded quarters. Secrets were very hard to keep in such a world.
For the poor, there was no separation even between people and their livestock. And, if there was no separate room for the livestock, nor was there a separate room for any of the people. Entire families were conceived, born, lived and died within shared physical spaces.
Even in cities people lived a village-like existence (London is a good example). Without transport to move easily from place to place people stayed within the confines of their local village. Neither rich nor poor city dwellers experienced privacy.
Nor did the generations of the early twentieth century experience privacy. During the first half of the century poverty meant that most people could not afford the luxury of privacy. And during that same period the wealthy still lived with domestic staffs who cared for their needs (and continued to ensure little privacy).
Privacy for most of us only became possible with the advent of the post World War II economic and population boom. The growth of tract housing in suburbs meant that nuclear families could live in large houses with separate rooms for most family members. Thus it was in this period that people could assume that they had a right to privacy.
Thus a brief flowering of privacy in the latter part of the twentieth century allowed many people to assume that this was how things had always been. It also allowed many to assume that this would continue. However, with the advent of the hyperconnected world of the early twenty-first century we are seeing digital villages remove the spaces between individuals once again.
Perhaps the only thing that enabled privacy to blossom was the increased physical space between people and lack of communications technology during the late twentieth century? And perhaps it is now time to farewell privacy once more?
Some resources for thinking about privacy follow: