[zcarter]

Most of the problems arise from the existence of asymmetric information. Consider how a blackmailer's power evaporates when the information they possess is made public. I think the simplest and most likely outcome is that all of the collected data will be made public.

While it would be nice to maintain the illusion of privacy, it is only that, an illusion.

[anigbrowl]

Consider how a blackmailer's power evaporates when the information they possess is made public.

The blackmailer's power to exploit the victim evaporates, but the victim's situation may still deteriorate. For example, you discover that I am a former stripper, but nowadays I teach elementary school. You contact me and threaten me with exposure. I turn the matter over to the police. Through police carelessness or some other unrelated cause,t he information becomes public anyway. Your abaility to exort money in return for silence is gone, but I get kicked out of my teaching job anyway and can't find another one, so I lose several years of my economic life, and possibly social standing etc.

A common problem with blackmail/privacy hypotheticals is an ambiguity over the moral culpability of the secret information. I personally don't think being a former stripper is a moral impediment to teaching elementary school but )a many disagree and b) I can think of many other things that I would consider a moral impediment but not one that I could necessarily justify on objective grounds.

[zcarter]

Right. I needed to define "problems." Problems at the level of society. If everyone has access to everyone else's behavior on the internet, society would change, yes, but I do not really believe the possibility of 'change' to be a problem itself.

Considering your former stripper example: - If they would be kicked out of the job, is the former stripper not defrauding the school and the parent in this example? Privacy in this case is helping the former stripper deceive the (possibly overprotective) parent. Is reducing the incidence of fraud a problem? - people having false beliefs and biases that are shattered by new information (possibly harmful by causing them emotional distress?) is not a reason to prevent the discovery of that new information. Generally, I don't think it is a problem if the reality of the world causes trauma in the form of preventing foolish ideas from continuing. I imagine Ted Haggard's outing was very emotionally traumatic for his parishioners. - Relative social morals would obviously change. Almost everyone has done something society deems weird on the internet. Social norms around pornography, for example, will change. The moment this happens, the parent would likely realize, everyone has done something possibly deemed objectionable in their past. Further, the parent would have better information about how the former stripper is currently behaving - the best way for them to make decisions about their child now.

[anigbrowl]

I picked that example because it's not actually illegal to be a stripped in many jurisdictions; while it's a stereotypically sleazy job, the sleaze factor arguably attaches to what strippers have to put up with as much as their activities. Thus, I'm not sure if or why parents should have an expectation of awareness about such activity in a person's past.

To be honest, I think you're overly optimistic about people's willingness to go with the flow of social permissiveness. Quite a lot of people are reactionaries.

[nickff]

How do these problems arise from asymmetric information?

Blackmailers have information, which becomes valueless when it is made public; their activities have much in common with selling non-public information for the purpose of insider-trading. I do not see what this has to do with privacy.