This Man Has Nothing to Hide – Not Even His Email Password

Lack of privacy seems like a good way to encourage cultural genocide. Total transparency for individuals would make it easier for prevailing thought-leaders to suppress minority groups. Culture could be eliminated before it has a chance to coalesce to the point of daring to enter public acceptance. To think otherwise is to believe that cultural tyranny (thus legal tyranny) wouldn't exist in a world where no one may hide. That's foolish. Tyranny bred in complete openness is possibly more insidious. It's harder to escape.

The author, perhaps, isn't bothered by the many reasons why other people unlike himself want privacy and have wanted privacy throughout history. Maybe the plight of others will never be good enough for him to change his advocacy. There's irony in his case. Not so long ago, and to this day in many parts of the world, revealing oneself as an atheist would have made one subject to extreme persecution, if not quicker death. It was through a long course of secrecy, over a gradual shift in public perception, which was rapidly accelerated by the soft veil of the internet, that more people began to feel safe enough to 'come out' as atheists. (Granted, that history didn't have a complete lack of privacy. Yet, if it had, I'd wager that the world today would have even fewer "heretics" upon whose shoulders others may rest their unpopular thoughts.)

Transparency should be a growing expectation people have toward all governments and institutions that wage force over people. I agree with that part.

But wouldn't government have less of an advantage over you in that respect in that society than it currently has?

Privacy is just a cloak. Hypocrites and liars may hide behind privacy but so do journalists and pregnant women. The same is true of hammers which has been used to build dog houses and murder children.

Ultimately, I don't think getting rid of privacy will do much to hypocrisy and lies. The sharp edge of embarrassment would be dull, allowing people to behave with less care for what others think. People would still lie and behave hypocritically but they would be better at evading. The comfort afforded by privacy would be transferred to the comfort in knowing that someone would have to sift through the information to find your lies and even if they did? Well, who doesn't lie? The less privacy politicians have the less I'm convinced privacy has an affect on lying.

I do agree though that a world constructed so that privacy isn't necessary would be a utopia and I believe it's possible to some extent.

> They would just get better at appearing to be ethical, which really isn't the same thing.

There's a long and hard-to-kill tradition of thought, both in the West and in other cultures, that says something along the lines of "If you try hard enough to look like you care about X for a long time, you'll end up actually caring about X."

It's the idea behind every educational system that requires students to wear uniforms: "Make them dress like ladies and gentlemen for several years, and they'll actually become ladies and gentlemen." It has also been the idea behind many state religions, both ancient and modern: "Make them participate in religious rituals from birth to death, and they'll actually come to have faith in our god(s)." What's scary is that this often works. It's an extremely powerful tool of social manipulation.

Similar to how violence is acceptable in defense of self and others, I think the same holds for lying or withholding information. If telling the truth risks inviting harm, it's right to lie. Since societies judge some lifestyles harshly, being less open than Dyer is perfectly ethical.

I agree that Dyer is fortunate to be able to take such an extreme position, but I do think society would be better off if we moved toward his ideal, rather than away from it.