The Evolution of Privacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Broadly speaking, privacy functions to selectively control access to oneself or one\u2019s group. We suggest that within our ancestral past, the role of privacy has been to help protect our body, territory, and reputation while around others. Consequently, millions of years of face-to-face interaction have seen us develop a toolkit of privacy-based intuitions which help to manage both our physical and psychological boundaries. Yet these evolved intuitions are often ill-equipped to deal with the emerging challenges of the digital environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An \u2018evolutionary mismatch\u2019 describes the negative consequence that occurs when a trait that evolved within one environment enters another. A classic mismatch example is our fondness for high-calorie foods \u2013 this was an adaptive trait within the ancestral environment where such foods were nourishing yet sparse. But today, when there\u2019s a McDonald\u2019s on every high street, this same trait can lead to obesity and diabetes. And so it is with privacy traits, too. Below we describe three related mismatches:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Working out who owns what can be a tricky business, however, humans have developed a set of ownership conventions to guide this process. Important cues like \u2018who first possessed an object\u2019 help to intuitively discern ownership within the interpersonal environment, but these cues often gets blurred online. For example, who is the first possessor of a Facebook user\u2019s data, Facebook or the user? This ownership ambiguity often leaves us unsure about what is ours and whether we ought to then protect it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Physical privacy enables us to navigate social space without becoming overstimulated. But within an online space, social cues relating to size, nature, and proximity of onlooking crowds tend to disappear. As a result, we\u2019re often worse at managing self-disclosure: sending that regrettable late-night tweet to your 200 followers is a lot easier than announcing it to an in-person crowd of 200.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Giving off a good or bad impression comes with social rewards and repercussions. As such, we instinctively modify what we say or do around others. For instance, if you had an Amazon employee sat in your living room recording your every utterance \u2013 unlikely, I know \u2013 you\u2019d be wary about what you were saying. But when Amazon\u2019s smart speaker Alexa is doing just that silently in the background, chances are that you talk freely and without a filter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Many modern technological surveillance devices lack the anthropomorphic cues necessary to trigger our instinctive reputational concern and downstream privacy behaviour.<\/p>\n\n\n\n E.O. Wilson once described us as having, \u201cStone Age emotions, medieval institutions, and godlike technology\u201d. Indeed, expecting Stone Age brains to self-manage personal data in the ever-changing digital environment is both unreliable and unrealistic. Reading the privacy policy for every website you visit in a year alone would take roughly one month! Instead, online culture and expectations need to change \u00ad\u2013 we as consumers must demand more top-down privacy protection from these godlike technologies. Afterall, none of us want someone looking over our shoulder.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Joe Green<\/a> is a PhD student under the supervision of Dr Matt Easterbrook.<\/a> Joe’s research studies how moral intuitions affect our attitudes towards modern issues like Universal Basic Income, automation, and online privacy.<\/em>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"Input-output](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/psychology\/files\/2020\/12\/Privacy-Mismatch-728x1024.png?resize=550%2C774&ssl=1\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nOwnership Psychology<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Personal Space<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Reputational Concern<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A Future<\/h2>\n\n\n\n