Charles Fried's Interpretation Of Privacy

Privacy is often considered an abstract idea – the absence of information from others. However, upon closer examination, privacy can also be seen as a tangible good that shapes our and others’ presence in life. Through the release or concealment of valuable information regarding ourselves and others, our respect for our own and others’ privacy defines our relationships and position in society.

Privacy derives its value from the personal information if it is released to others. In his essay, “Privacy,” Professor Charles Fried considers “the title to information about oneself conferred by privacy” (484) a valuable good that can be exchanged as gifts in a relationship. However, Fried’s interpretation of privacy can be broadened and applied to

Fried explains that such intimacy with others involves “the sharing of information about one’s actions, beliefs, or emotions […] which one has the right not to share with anyone” (484). In other words, the foundation of relationships lies in the mutual sacrifice of one’s privacy to exclusively those involved in the relationship. From an economic perspective, this trade results in not only a net loss of zero but also a potential gain from the relationship, such as advice from a lawyer or happiness from a spouse. At the same time, from a psychological perspective, scholars Petter Brandtzaeg et al. found that these relationships are a valuable form of social capital (1020). People simply find entertainment in keeping in touch with their friends, and as Posner explains, prying is an educational experience through which the curious man can gain valuable experience about life

As Fried explains, the loss of control and resulting imbalance in the relinquishment of privacy within the relationship may cause it to rupture (485). In addition, since relationships are founded upon mutually giving up some privacy, Fried warns that one who shares everything with everyone will have little privacy left to share exclusively in a relationship (484) or to differentiate between levels of intimacy. For example, Brandtzaeg et al. report that Facebook users are faced with the challenge of sharing the same content with a diverse group of close friends and acquaintances, which may create social distrust (1021). Since the intimacy of a relationship corresponds to the amount of private information shared, Facebook users feel uncomfortable sharing the same content with all of their