Why does privacy matter? What are the best principled arguments for it? Where to set the boundary [i.e., when is it best to require that certain actions be more broadly known]? My own answer to this bundle of questions isn't very good. I've read a few classic books, papers, and essays, but overall I'm not especially well read in the history of privacy. Some incomplete and poorly-digested thoughts: + Surveillance creates a flow of power from the one surveilled to the surveiller. Most crudely with threats ("we saw you do such-and-such an activity, now you must do as we say or we will disclose"), but perhaps moreso with predictive models (if you know how someone acts you can build a model that helps you manipulate them - this is the basic premise of surveillance capitalism, which now dominates advertising, and which you and I are currently co-participating in, as I write & you read) + In general, "the right to do things, provided they don't hurt others" [i.e., freedom] is one of the most important inventions in human history. And surveillance is often justified on the basis of preventing "hurt others" (good), but in practice used to prevent action against incumbent powers (bad), or simply things which busy-bodies don't like (also bad). + It's interesting how difficult I find that "right to do things, provided they don't hurt others". Instinctively, I feel it enormously strongly. But when I try to write out justifications they're insipid. It's like the principle is so vast I can only see tiny bits of it. Anyway, curious if others have unusually powerful answers to these questions