Privacy and state power

The argument against total transparency – total absence of privacy, the "surveillance society" – has to be that we don’t want to be punished for some, at least, of the things we do, and want to continue to do, that are illegal or contrary to society’s religious or moral views, despite the disapproval of others, whether by the government, our employers, religious authorities, or anyone else.

That is to say, we don’t want law enforcement, crime prevention, or simply the social sanction to be too effective.

And yet we are the same people who pass laws in the hope crime - well, some crimes, anyway - can be, if not prevented, at least avenged and so, at least, discouraged.

Some of us do our best to get employers to punish behavior or even merely thoughts or speech we disapprove.

And we may otherwise join in with efforts to apply the social sanction.

Accepting the viewpoint of Hobbes, we allow certain constraints on our own behavior in return for like constraints on others.

But none of us really get to control Leviathan, our neighbors, or the social sanctions.

So Leviathan, our employers, and our neighbors can be counted on to seek to constrain us in ways we don't wish to be constrained, even if that means they won't be, either.

And even beyond that we may, for whatever reason, wish to see things punished that we ourselves fully intend to continue to do, and for which we hope to escape punishment.

And so, accepting the viewpoint of De Sade, we insist on cracks and fissures, holes and corners, where we have the freedom to commit our preferred crimes even at the risk of enduring the like - or unlike! - crimes of others.