Justin - I wish I had thought of the show "Big Brother" for my original post! I agree that the Big Brother image still seems compelling notwithstanding the success and popularization of the show by the same name. But I still maintain that this very popularization weakens the cultural currency of the metaphor as useful tool for privacy. The ultimate message of this particular appropriation of the metaphor is that having Big Brother watch you -- or millions of viewers for that matter -- is not necessarily a bad thing. It might even be fun, even naughty, and, at worse, just boring and banal (Big Brother is all three, with an emphasis on banality). That latter sentiment seems pretty consistent with broader attitudes about informational privacy: so you lose a little privacy by giving away a bit of banal data. And maybe someone might see that banal data. Who cares?

Of course, cultural commentary is notoriously hard to prove -- and hard for you to disprove -- but I am not convinced that even if the image of Big Brother remains disturbing at a glance, reliance on the metaphor helps, rather than hurts, the cause. I think its more than just dilution of message; the metaphor itself covertly and actively promotes anti-privacy attitudes.

On the second point, I actually hope you and Andrei are right; that privacy can ultimately work with consumerism. Certainly, as you both point out, consumerism might promote privacy if people see privacy-promoting goods as something worthwhile pursuing and consuming. But I remain skeptical, at least until we fully face the difficulty of reconciliation. There seems to be a desire for privacy out there-- so why hasn't some smart capitalist figured out how to make money off of it? The answer might be that it is just so much easier making money by pursuing practices that erode privacy-- consumer data mining and surveillance to construct efficient marketing models and establish brand loyalty through feedback of consumer preferences. Sure, a few merchants might make some money off cameras or anonymizing software, but I cannot see this turning the tides in privacy's favor.

In any case, thanks for the links and note-- I've actually been meaning to fire a response to your great piece on social movements and copyright, so keep an eye out!

-- JonPenney - 26 Mar 2009

On point one, I think that the transformation of the expression can make all the difference, and may not have the dilution effect you claim. For example, is this image any weaker after you've seen this video, or been to this website? I personally do not think so.

My objection to your second point is that I think that Andrei is correct concerning the fact that consumerism and privacy are not at odds, and that strengthening one does not necessarily harm the other. I think the appropriation of metaphors can be used for both profit and privacy. For example, if this company used the big brother metaphor to sell it's products, wouldn't that help both consumerism and privacy? Also, to take the castle example, how does wanting a modern castle with flashy items make us less wary of privacy violations? Does wanting cameras for your home so that you know if someone is in the woods watching you defeat your privacy?

Let me be clear that I do not think that my objections necessarily defeat your thesis, I am just trying to point out some holes that I perceive in your argument. Thanks for an interesting essay. -- JustinColannino - 20 Mar 2009

Kate - thanks also for the note. I, too, have been smitten in the past by privacy metaphors, but likewise have wondered if, why, and how they might have failed us. This post is part of the product of that thought process.

As for the "Fourth Amendment Goes to Canada" paper, I decided that I needed to tighten up the writing and the analysis a bit more, including offering a few punchier solutions. Have no fear, however, I think it may make a version 2.02 re-appearance in the form of my second paper!

-- JonPenney - 18 Mar 2009

I think discussing privacy metaphors is interesting and worthwhile, but I hesitate to say that privacy is where it is because our metaphors have failed us. I think at the end of the day how much you care about privacy is probably very closely related to how much you trust the government and without a good sense of this country's history, no metaphor is going to help.

On another note, I actually really liked the first paper you posted and am sorry to see it go.

-- KateVershov - 18 Mar 2009

Thanks for the comment, Andrei. Arguably, consumerism is fundamentally at odds with privacy, since, at bottom, it aligns happiness or satisfaction with consumption. And consumption is hard to square with privacy. Privacy, by its very nature, is about preservation; about guarding intimate spaces from intervening forces, be they authoritarian or otherwise. One of those intervening forces is consumerism's need to expand, grow, and consume. But for the sake of argument, let's say you are right that consumerism and privacy are not irreconcilable. That reconciliation will nevertheless be difficult for the same reasons. As you note, commercial interests are actively pushing an anti-privacy consumerism and let's be honest: they have a head start and lot of momentum. A few centuries worth, actually. The problem with privacy metaphors being appropriated by these forces is: first, not only do their superficial cleverness or salience distract from the task at hand-- addressing why people choose convenience over privacy -- but in the process they silently promote and strengthen anti-privacy consumerism. Second, through appropriation privacy metaphors lose capacity to effectively oppose that momentum with, as you say, a visceral enough message. Is the Big Brother metaphor about privacy? Or is it about Apple computers and personal empowerment by consumer purchasing? The fact both are probably right shows that the metaphor is likely no longer an effective tool for privacy promotion.

-- JonPenney - 12 Mar 2009