[Diederich]

Honest question.

I think, historically, most people have lived in very tight quarters, quite close to a lot of other people. Indeed, that's still true for many of us!

Some of these very 'always nearby' people would be family members and/or greatly trusted, but even one layer beyond that would be a lot of people who we would consider acquaintances today.

My question: isn't it possible that the amount of privacy some people had in the last couple of centuries was rather anomalous? That our default level of privacy has always been very low.

Edit: To be clear, I do not intend to minimize the value of privacy, whether it's a recent thing or not. However, some historical context is, I believe, useful.

[peller]

To state it another way: isn't it possible that the amount of freedom some people had in the last couple of centuries was rather anomalous? That our default level of freedom has always been very low?

I would posit both your and my "questions" are true. Does that truth make it any less worth fighting for? One might even argue, there is no such thing as freedom without privacy.

[Diederich]

Well stated. We are in 'violent' agreement.

[iamnothere]

This is true for many things though. Isn't it true that the level of healthcare available recently is rather anomalous, historically speaking? Or the quantity of food available?

Technology can grant us advantages if we allow it. It can also take them away.

[Diederich]

Very true! I didn't mean to minimize the value of privacy, whether it's a relatively new thing or not; some historical context is useful though.

[eveningcoffee]

There is an important difference. This transparency applied to the most of the people - everyone was transparent, except some exceptional people.

In many parts of the world we have lived already about two hundred years with expectation to high level privacy.

[Diederich]

I agree; it's an interesting perspective.