Privacy

We had an interesting discussion about surveillance cameras and privacy yesterday.  The question I posed to the group was "what privacy is violated by surveillance cameras that are covering streets, shopping malls, parking lots etc which are all public spaces."

The obvious objection is that these camera can be aimed to look through someone's window but there seem little ground for objection to coverage of the public space.

Conrad mentioned that the objection from the civil liberties group is that we in general placed too much belief in the usefulness of the camera when in fact it is very expensive for someone to be watching these cameras and there are less expensive crime control methods available.

It surprised me that the civil liberties group are objecting on cost and practical grounds rather than ethical grounds.  It would mean to me that there are no ethical reason for objection but there is a general unease with surveillance cameras which we are having difficulty with.

The more interesting part of the discussion was on why privacy is important.

Shula thinks that there is a connection between privacy and the individual's identity.  In socialist collective societies where the individual's identity is diminished for the sake of valuing the social group identity, individuals have little or no privacy.  Whereas privacy is most valued in individualistic societies in western culture.

She also felt that privacy is required to preserve one's sense of dignity.

I remember when I started work in the 70's, I was working in a manufacturer where the plant manager had an executive washroom.  This is common in those days and maintained some distance between the top management and the workers.

Is this the same as Shula's reference to privacy being required to preserve the executive's sense of dignity over the workers he command or is this just a class barrier between management and worker?

Joseph said that it is common in the military for commissioned officers to have different washroom and social facilities from the non commissioned officers.  The purpose here is to keep the separation and distance as the commissioned officers may have to send the soldiers to their death in times of war and it is not desirable for them to be too close socially.

Bruce mentioned a similar separation in schools of the staff washroom and lunchrooms different from the students and that the students are not comfortable when there are times when these facilities are to be shared.

Maybe we have different parts of our identities we take on in different circumstances.  The teacher, executive, leader, takes on a certain role when dealing with the student, worker, and follower and these roles are blurred or distorted when mixed with other parts of identities that we are all human with bodily functions, and that we are imperfect with faults when not assuming the leading roles.

The cynical may say that privacy is just an excuse to explain that we are putting a front (playing a role) and not being ourselves.

However, there are expectations from students, workers, and follower of their teacher, executive, and leader.    In an imperfect world, can we modify these expectations to real life or is it easier to just go with the flow of these expectations and play the part, making things simpler and easier?

The often said argument against privacy is why do we need it if we have nothing to hide?

I would say that in an imperfect world, we have to deal with preconceived expectations of others that we do not always get a chance or have the ability to correct.

Privacy, dignity, identity, social roles, expectations;  I feel like I am scratching the surface,  there has to be more to come but not for now.