[mutatismutandis]

I understand that you believe that privacy is hiding the truth. It appears that you believe that the only reason someone would hide any information is because it only allows one to lie. Thus you conclude that since lying is bad, privacy is also bad because it promotes lying. If the above chain of reasoning is accurate, then let's do a thought experiment. What if you personally hold a belief that is contrary to public opinion, in fact, let's say it's a crime to believe this, but you still believe it? And for some reason you decided to make mention of it to someone and you are outed for holding a belief. Do you think that even though you disagree with society at large, you should be punished for that belief? Who is correct in this scenario? You? The people? ... privacy isn't just about lies, it's about being able to have space to have thoughts and develop concepts that may not be ready for public consumption. It's about freedom to think about concepts or beliefs without State retribution for not holding the party line. It's not about withholding truth. It's about being able to control the information that you personally generate without fear of judgement from external parties.

[karmacondon]

The underlying assumption to your hypothetical is that thought crimes exist. I would say that someone in that situation doesn't have a privacy problem, they have a governance problem. Either a dictator has seized power or their fellow citizens have voted to make it illegal to express certain ideas. And in either case, encryption isn't going to be much of a solution. It'll only delay the inevitable. Someone who talks about illegal ideas is taking a big risk anyway.

It seems common that the arguments for privacy trumping other values depend on bad behavior by state actors. In which case, reforming the state by whatever means necessary would probably do more good than advocating for philosophical concepts.

[mutatismutandis]

Fair. I was just trying to take the problem to the hypothetical edge of having no privacy at all; to a case where you do not even enough privacy to share a thought without fear of retribution. I was also trying to align the idea with their understanding of freedom of speech, they do agree freedom of speech is ok, so if you can tie speech into thought and then also into privacy, maybe there would be a logical connection that allows them to understand the need for privacy as a type of freedom.

The situation is very complex because privacy has been implicit in our daily lives for so long, it's really difficult to map out the ways it would reduce our personal freedom. If we want to remove privacy, then we need to make it impossible for anyone to keep anything private from anyone else.

If privacy isn't important; then we should all live in proverbial glass houses where everyone can see everyone else's lives. Why should we trust the government with that power, why not everyone?

[ghaff]

Dave Eggers' The Circle is perhaps worth reading in this context. I don't actually think it's a very good book and is mostly tolerable if it's read in the vein of a deliberately exaggerated "if this goes on" cautionary tale. But there are a number of speeches by one of the characters (Bailey?) in the vein of why radical transparency is good.