Ethics, Privacy, and Self-Restraint in Social Networking

Privacy is a basic human need. It is anthropologically and psychologically rooted in the sense of shame and the need for bodily integrity, personal space, and intimacy in interpersonal relationships. Especially in modern Western cultures, it is understood as a necessary condition for individual autonomy, identity, and integrity (Altman 1975; Westin 1967; see also Margulis, this volume, Chap. 2). The desire for privacy is historically variable and has increased noticeably throughout the process of modernization. As J€urgen Habermas (1962) has shown in his seminal study The Transformation of the Public Sphere, this process led to the emergence of the private sphere as a corollary to the public sphere: the private sphere offers the protection and freedom necessary for the undisturbed growth and self-fulfillment of the modern subject, who then, as a citizen, can participate in exchanging opinions and forming public discourse in the communicative space of the public sphere. Privacy is to be distinguished from secrecy. While privacy can be understood in a broad way as the “right to be let alone” (Warren and Brandeis 1890) and the right not to reveal information about oneself, secrecy refers to blocking or hiding any type of information. A person’s privacy is characterized by “a series of concentric circles of intimacy in which the degree of intimacy diminishes from the innermost circle outward” (Hodges 2009, p. 277f.). The more intimate something feels to a person, the more it is considered a private issue that will only be shared with someone who is close to them. While specific personal information, such as embarrassing facts, will sometimes be kept secret by an individual, secrecy has usually more to do with keeping certain places, persons, or information hidden from any unauthorized eye (e.g., arcane places, secret agents, state or business secrets).