We have stated in many occasions our point of view regarding the so-called “Intellectual Property Rights” IPRs (see for example Intellectual Property Rights Are Dumb ). Our opinion is backed by our theoretical framework described in the article A New Theory Of Intellectual Property Rights. In essence, IPRs are manure.
However, one issue that we have not addressed is the issue of privacy. It is clear that privacy and IPs (Intellectual Properties) are related. Privacy is simply a direct derivative from our IP framework.
Before we address this issue, we need to take a look at how privacy is treated today. This is, privacy as it is known today is nothing more and nothing less than an extension of IPRs. It is an extension of IPRs in the sense that it prohibits people from so-called “intruding” into private moments and locations of other people. As such, it has all the same pitfalls as any other IPR laws and regulations. Why is so? Glad you asked.
Privacy laws deny people the simple use of transmission media containing information that has been neglected. In other words, said laws deny the principle of homesteading.
For example, if somebody is photographed through the window of his/her house from outside of his/her property, this is considered an “intrusion” and a “breach of privacy” in many countries. This is, of course, stupid, stupid, stupid. The person taking the photograph is outside of the owner's property and is using photons that have no ownership, hence homesteadable. The person whose information those photons contain, let those photons leave the property and therefore abandoned them. If this person did not want to be photographed all this person had to do was to close the blinds or use a curtain!
Again, privacy is not somebody else’s issue but a personal issue. Since we own our bodies absolutely, it is entirely our responsibility. If we don’t want people eavesdropping in a valid manner, it is our responsibility to prevent such occurrence. It is simply ridiculous to demand that other people take care and preserve our privacy which is in ultimate analysis our property.
We must also clarify the difference between spying from eavesdropping. Eavesdropping is simply making use of a transmission media without ownership which happens to be homesteadable. For as long as we are in such conditions and we do not interact with other people’s property in any other manner, eavesdropping is valid.
Spying on the other hand is different. Spying typically involves our interaction with other people’s property without a voluntary agreement. For example, if we work for a food company and are privy to their secret recipes but are barred from divulging said secrets by contract, any release of said secrets to the outside word is spying and this is most certainly not valid.
Another example. Let’s say that a movie star lives in a house with high walls to protect her privacy. Because of this wall, it is physically impossible to take any pictures. However, a paparazzi drills a small hole through the wall and takes photographs through it. Or this person simply plants microphones on the wall. This is spying because this person is interacting with other people's property without a voluntary agreement.
What all this amounts to is quite simple. If you want your privacy it is entirely up to you to assure it. Whatever you do not assure, its fair play. If you don’t like to be seen, close your window! If you don’t like to be heard, don’t scream!
The current concept privacy is yet another derivative of flawed IPRs that removes basic rights from people while transferring responsibilities to third parties.
It is quite simple. We either are responsible for our own properties (and actions) or we are not. If we are not, then you must put up with the consequences and our current political system. Your choice.
Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.
