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.
There is the classical example from Strategy of Conflict (ironically copied from your own book summary):
Imagine you and I have been separately parachuted into an unknown mountainous area. We both have maps and radios, and we know our own positions, but don’t know each other’s positions. The task is to rendezvous. Normally we’d coordinate by radio and pick a suitable meeting point, but this time you got lucky. So lucky in fact that I want to strangle you: upon landing you discovered that your radio is broken. It can transmit but not receive.
Two days of rock-climbing and stream-crossing later, tired and dirty, I arrive at the hill where you’ve been sitting all this time smugly enjoying your lack of information.
And after we split the prize and cash our checks I learn that you broke the radio on purpose.
(Edit: Nevermind, misread the above to say” In what simple models are people worse off when they have more information about others”)
In what simple model of information are people never worse off when others have more information about them?
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.
There is the classical example from Strategy of Conflict (ironically copied from your own book summary):
(Edit: Nevermind, misread the above to say” In what simple models are people worse off when they have more information about others”)