In the simple model that information is used only to make better predictions, more (correct) information is better. Models that add the complexity of adversarial motives generally do show that secrecy has value.
Secrecy CAN have private value. But it isn’t at all clear that we are typically together better off with secrets. There are some cases, to be sure, where that is true. But there are also so many cases where it is not.
It seems to me that removing privacy would mostly help religions, political movements and other movements that feed on conformity of their members. That doesn’t seem like a small thing—I’m not sure what benefit could counterbalance that.
Quite agree—depending on how you aggregate individual values and weigh the adversarial motives, it’s quite possible that “we” are often worse off with secrets. It’s not clear whether or when that’s the case from the “simple model” argument, though.
And certainly there are cases where unilateral revelations while others retain privacy are harmful. Anytime you’d like to play poker where your cards are face-up and mine are known only to me, let me know.
I would love to explore whether private information is similar to other capital, where overall welfare can be improved by redistribution, but only under certain assumptions of growth, aggregation and individual benefits canceling out others’ harms.
In the simple model that information is used only to make better predictions, more (correct) information is better. Models that add the complexity of adversarial motives generally do show that secrecy has value.
Secrecy CAN have private value. But it isn’t at all clear that we are typically together better off with secrets. There are some cases, to be sure, where that is true. But there are also so many cases where it is not.
It seems to me that removing privacy would mostly help religions, political movements and other movements that feed on conformity of their members. That doesn’t seem like a small thing—I’m not sure what benefit could counterbalance that.
Quite agree—depending on how you aggregate individual values and weigh the adversarial motives, it’s quite possible that “we” are often worse off with secrets. It’s not clear whether or when that’s the case from the “simple model” argument, though.
And certainly there are cases where unilateral revelations while others retain privacy are harmful. Anytime you’d like to play poker where your cards are face-up and mine are known only to me, let me know.
I would love to explore whether private information is similar to other capital, where overall welfare can be improved by redistribution, but only under certain assumptions of growth, aggregation and individual benefits canceling out others’ harms.