Privacy Isn't Dead, or At Least It Shouldn't Be: A Q&A with Latanya Sweeney: Scientific American

Privacy Isn't Dead, or At Least It Shouldn't Be: A Q&A with Latanya Sweeney: Scientific American:

Why is privacy versus security becoming such a problem? Why should we even care?

(Laughs) Well, one issue is we need privacy. I don't mean political issues. We literally can't live in a society without it. Even in nature animals have to have some kind of secrecy to operate. For example, imagine a lion that sees a deer down at a lake and it can't let the deer know he's there or [the deer] might get a head start on him. And he doesn't want to announce to the other lions [what he has found] because that creates competition. There's a primal need for secrecy so we can achieve our goals.

Privacy also allows an individual the opportunity to grow and make mistakes and really develop in a way you can't do in the absence of privacy, where there's no forgiving and everyone knows what everyone else is doing. There was a time when you could mess up on the east coast and go to the west coast and start over again. That kind of philosophy was revealed in a lot of things we did. In bankruptcy, for example. The idea was, you screwed up, but you got to start over again. With today's technology, though, you basically get a record from birth to grave and there's no forgiveness. And so as a result we need technology that will preserve our privacy.