Privacy vs Transparency

 This is a debate which really fascinates me and is keeping me quite confused and perplexed. Integrity, honesty, transparency are qualities worthy of emulation and yet most of us claim that there should be right to Privacy especially in view of the assault that we face from the use of the data generated by our activities on social media. While the world wide web has opened up the amount of knowledge available, the data it generates is truly mind boggling. This data can be used, abused, misused and in turn it can twist the truth so badly that we will never know the truth from the untruth. 

Let us start from the basics. From the creation standpoint the human species has evolved to what it is today and if so we need to look at our predecessors. Mostly it maybe Adam and Eve or the caveman. Did these require any privacy? The answer is a resounding no as there was nothing to hide and everything to learn and know. As men procreated and their numbers increased they realised that for survival they needed to become hunter gatherers and stay together. The lookout men warned the rest and man with his group was always on the run. They gathered wild fruits ate them and if possible hunted some animals and once they discovered fire they used it to cook and ward away the animals which were stronger and larger. At this stage privacy was considered abnormal and looked down upon. 

But once this happened man started living in groups and started learning to grow crops and domesticate animals which they sacrificed to get food. This group of men became stable and the nomadic life gave way to stable areas of habitation. Man started to look for natural defences against other animals or human groups by creating barriers in the form of natural obstacles like trees, forests, rocks, mountains etc. This was perhaps the beginning of some privacy. Ownership of weapons, animals and some areas of plants led to the concept of smaller groups remaining separate in terms of having their own possessions. The fact of possessions of weapons and animals collectively led to creation of better protection. Walls were made in these times, guards and armies made a start creating some form of protection and privacy. This started extending to similar walls to protect possessions and animals and humans started to live in houses together at least at night. Still the privacy concept was not really strong as people were out in the open most times. The doors were open and people walked in and out. 

I suppose things started changing when man started to steal and the concept of family and possession of wife and children as part of family started taking root. The simultaneous rise of the concept of religion, God, language and societal structures like ruler and states developed. The printing press language and the written word became the developments which led to more layers of I, me and mine. Then came photography and the ability to take pictures without the knowledge of the person who was being photographed led to further quarrels and infringement of personal spaces. Man and women started competing for attention, possessions and therefore started projecting themselves and creating images of themselves based on the norms of societal demands. The wilder side and sexual promiscuity became part of home behaviour and based on religious norms and man made rules, humans became conscious of their roles and behaviour in society. This was the true birth of privacy. Then came the availability of data in terms of past records of behaviour in terms of criminal, financial and moral law infringements. These records determined the suitability of an individual in terms of forging an association or relationship. The real concept of privacy started taking shape as man started becoming more selfish and sin and slander and defamation became the norms of society. 

In a world full of crime terrorism politics business and state coercion, the infringement of privacy for common good or protection of people from unscrupulous elements, courts have been called upon to decide the extent to which freedom and legal rights can be compromised to allow the state to act in the interest of safety and security at a local, national or even international level. The chance that this could be misused was explored and certain safeguards are in place to ensure that the state cannot use this power without permission or justification. These have been enshrined in law much more strongly in the US and British law than in India where the legacy of colonial rule and partition led to India not having a Privacy protection law. However, over years when issues of privacy came in conflict with fundamental freedoms, like gay rights or rights to forced entry after divorce or visiting rights to children led to rulings which conferred privacy. When Aadhar KYC became the norm and biometric fingerprint and iris was taken the state had created an important tool to ensure proper identity and in a country where a large proportion of the population had not filed income tax returns or had a bank account Aadhar provided an identity which cost less and the fact that majority of population was covered by Aadhar made it a positive game changer. However, since a bunch of petitions challenging the Government came up the Supreme court constituted a 9 judge bench to adjudicate and virtually created a right to privacy in India. 

Two things that still perplex me is the simplicity and transparency of Gandhi which made him the great man he was. There was no gap between thought, word and deed and therefore privacy, secrecy and any kind of need to hide anything from the world was abhorrent and unnatural to him. Much as I admire Gandhi this is utopian and impossible to achieve or even comprehend. 

The other aspect relates to the digital devices apps, online shopping and social media where we sign up and say yes to all permissions given and granted. The blanket consent protects the service provider from any liability and harm which occurs to an individual on account data misuse harming the user. This data can be of immense value if used well in terms of use in healthcare in tracking disease and coupled with wearable devices can create a revolution in healthcare and many other fields. The algorithms can lead to unintended positive and negative consequences. Just as there are financial regulatory monitoring bodies which regulate and educate people and give ratings based on scientific data similar bodies can be developed which can perhaps detect and penalize sites or companies which intentionally misuse data which can harm an individuals rights. Merely having taken consent which has fine print which is impossible to read or decipher by experts cannot justify allowing these companies to get away with any crime. The problem with this approach is that the linkage of data across sites which happen due to innovations will not take place for fear of being penalised. Apps and domains which are likely to give immense benefits in terms of creating data in healthcare which can help control pandemics like we saw during covid and also helping productivity by use large language models, preventing people from getting lost as a result of navigation, precise targeting in war etc etc. will not be developed as the programers will be vary of getting caught. So one can propose warning , disclosure and opportunity to correct or compensate those whose privacy is compromised. 

Finally, while I do not have the answer to this problem, I am certain that while privacy is important, integrity, transparency and accountability are far more valuable and in such cases one can live lives which are like open books. Privacy and right to live freely without coercion are certainly hallmarks of democratic society but the greed and desires to control all around is responsible for repeated assaults on privacy. As our devices are following or tacking us we are fast reaching a stage where our digital footprint can tell us more about ourselves than we know or care to know. 

Vispi Jokhi