Is privacy in the modern age dead? Or is it alive and free such as an untamed horse galloping along in its natural habitat and not being shackled with a saddle, bridle or stirrup? Privacy was described in www.dictionary.com/browse/privacy as being in a state of freedom, concealment and seclusion among other definitions. However, what is privacy? Is it an act we do or is it a thought we keep to our selves? Does it really exist?

Perhaps this is a very important concept, which needs to be explored. I say privacy existed up until the advent of the 19th century when Louis Daguerre created the first practical photographic process in 1837, which he named the daguerreotype, and publicly unveiled in 1839. This marked the beginning and slow death of privacy in the world as we know it. Following Daguerre’s invention, came the modern camera, cellular phones and satellites. This thrust to modernise society and gain more control of our surroundings have been strengthened with the advent of stronger technological advances resulting in smaller spaces of control for privacy.

With this infusion of technology, any input device, such as a television monitor, a computer screen or a traffic light, could be used to infringe on an individual’s right to privacy. Added to those previously mentioned technological advancement is the Internet, which has the capability to sending information throughout the world. If you look around in governments and different societies, you will see classic examples of challenges to the perceived existence or notion of privacy.

Beginning with movies such as Enemy of the State (1998) and Behind Enemy Lines (2001), it could visibly be seen that satellites could easily be used to spy on or track any individual in the world regardless of time of day or place. This is now complicated by the existence of spy drones and other equipment that can see through walls.

Closer to home, police officers are wearing body cameras to record their interactions with civilians and cameras are being placed in traffic lights, restaurants, and all over the place. This measure, it is argued, is needed to prop up security and community policing. In my country, Jamaica, this has been taken to the extreme, where the Government is trying to change the perceived non-informer culture. Our citizens are being called upon to tell what they know to the police, which some might think is infringing on the privacy/rights of others.

For instance, child abuse has long been a problem of our country, and this mostly happens in homes. It is here one would consider their home a place of privacy and sanctuary. However, to safeguard the rights of the children, the Jamaican Government is calling upon individuals to report incidents of abuse or neglect regardless of the environment or place that the abuse or neglect takes place.

In our daily lives, the notion of privacy is also shrinking. Again, with the advent of cellular camera phones, one’s actions are not private anymore. A picture can be snapped or a video recorded at any time without the knowledge or consent of the individual involved. Where once existed a “my word versus your word” scenario, video recordings are submitting irrefutable proof as evidence to substantiate or disprove people’s accounts of incidents. This situation has now resulted in governments changing or amending laws to control/monitor or manage the paradigm shift to facilitate technological use or advances in society and everyday life. The cellular phone, one can argue, is versatile and can also serve other purposes, such as facilitating the immediate contacting of regulating authorities when crimes are committed or are about to be committed. This action would enable quicker responses by security forces and for aid to be given to victims of crimes. Is privacy infringed upon in these situations? Some would argue to affirm this point.

The criminals could argue that before the advent of cellular phones or cameras, carrying out a job would be easier, and their privacy would not be infringed on while they committed their unscrupulous acts. However, the victims could argue that they would gladly give up their right to privacy to protect their lives and assets. Hence, arising out of this situation is the emergence of cameras and more monitors in homes and businesses, which lead to the death of privacy in some homes and businesses.

Having briefly discussed and chronicled the use of technological innovations in society and their relationship to privacy, do you believe that privacy is dead in the 21st century? Others might yet believe that privacy still exists. I certainly do believe it exists, but only in the minds of individuals. However, the death of true privacy through the introduction and use of technological advances to improve security has greatly enhanced and improved the lives of many individuals across the world.

Horatio Morgan is a researcher interested in the areas of technical analysis, development of indicators and developmental research. Organisational analysis is one of his many passions and the need to incorporate research into the rubric of developing national governmental policies. Send comments to the Observer or horatio.morgan@yahoo.com.