privacy is only good because people aren’t good. in a perfect world we wouldn’t need privacy. Is that right?

Privacy, broadly defined as the right to control access to one’s personal information and space, is often framed as a safeguard against harm. The assertion that “privacy is only good because people aren’t good” reduces its value to a reaction to human flaws: if people were inherently kind, honest, and virtuous, there would be nothing to hide, suggesting privacy would be obsolete in the ideal world. While this perspective appears compelling, it is reductive and oversimplifies the nature and function of privacy. Privacy is not merely a defensive mechanism but an intrinsic human need rooted in autonomy, dignity, and social cohesion. Even in a “perfect” world, privacy would remain necessary-though perhaps for different reasons.

To begin with, privacy is not simply about hiding wrongdoing or avoiding harm; it is a space to think freely, develop opinions, and dissent without constant observation. Take, for example, the experience of a teenager exploring their political ideology, sexual orientation, or faith. Even if observers are entirely well-intentioned, the awareness of being watched inevitably alters behaviour. Without privacy, the individual is perpetually performing, surveilled, and shaped by external pressures. This constant exposure could lead to performative behaviour, eroding authenticity and making genuine self-discovery difficult. Could creativity or personal growth truly thrive if everyone always felt watched? Even in a world without malice, the absence of privacy risks making everyone’s thoughts and actions the same, stifling the diversity of ideas that drive progress. John Stuart Mill, for instance, argued that privacy is essential for individuality, as societal pressure to conform can suppress innovation and personal growth. Thus, surveillance, however benign, undermines the freedom to experiment, dissent, or grow on one’s own terms.

Critics might argue that in a “perfect world,” trust and transparency would render privacy obsolete. However, this view confuses privacy with secrecy. Privacy is not just about hiding things; it enables boundaries, which are vital for healthy relationships and functioning societies. Consider medical confidentiality: patients share sensitive information with doctors not because they distrust society, but because selective disclosure fosters trust in specific contexts. Similarly, voting relies on privacy to ensure choices remain free from social pressure, even in a society of “good” people. Privacy also underpins many cultural and institutional frameworks. For example, legal systems protect attorney-client privilege not because people are bad, but to uphold justice. If all interactions were public, power imbalances could persist-employees might hesitate to critique employers, or marginalized groups might avoid expressing dissent. Privacy, in this sense, acts as a leveller, ensuring individuals can engage with systems on fair terms. Is a society truly “perfect” if its members cannot negotiate boundaries or protect vulnerable aspects of their lives?

That said, the quote does highlight an important truth: many privacy mechanisms-passwords, encrypted messaging, locks-exist precisely because humans can and do cause harm. In an ideal society where people are perfectly virtuous-kind, respectful, and transparent-the darker motivations that necessitate secrecy, like manipulation or exploitation, might disappear. Still, privacy is not only a reaction to vice, but a proactive condition for freedom. Even in a so-called perfect world, people would still have different views, interests, and ways of living. Forcing everyone to be completely open all the time would paradoxically create a new social pressure to conform-a soft control where people feel they must behave in certain ways just because they’re always visible. It assumes that everyone is perpetually comfortable being seen, when in reality, individuals need spaces to retreat from their social roles, even in the most idealistic societies. Without such spaces, the pressure to perform could undermine mental well-being. In my opinion, the value of freedom and autonomy cannot be outweighed by even the most positive world generated if everyone was forced to always act in the best interest of others.

The idea that privacy is only valuable because people aren’t good misses the bigger picture. Privacy is much more than a shield against bad behaviour; it’s essential for individuality, freedom, and the healthy functioning of society. Even in a perfect world, people would still need privacy to explore, grow, and be themselves. As our world becomes more connected and technology blurs the lines between public and private, it’s more important than ever to remember why privacy matters – not just as protection from harm, but as a basic part of being human.