 Okay, so I'm delighted to see so many people here in the morning kind of Wanting to hear a talk about Hannah Arendt's political philosophy of privacy. This is Julia Maria Mönig She has written her dissertation about this topic and about Hannah Arendt and I think she just Was very successful in I don't know what Fatahidegen in English is defending it So give her a warm applause for that And her current project is called the Luxury of the Private Life a Privilege for the Lucky Few, so maybe this is a question of her talk too her talk will be all about the Philosophical concept of privacy why we need to protect it and and Why we need to protect it because we want to prevent totally totalitarianism. Sorry. It's very early for me to so I'm very Yeah, delighted to hear that talk because I'm a fan of Hannah Arendt myself so it's your stage now and Have fun. Thanks Thank you for the kind introduction. I'm very excited to be here and that the organizers picked my talk Yeah, and you can see the topic and the title of my talk on my first slide And I have to admit that there are already a few questionable points about it Actually all of them as you can see louder. I don't know Louder do you hear me now? Okay Okay, so can you hear me better now should I speak louder does it help? Yeah, okay. Okay. Thanks Okay, thanks, so if you can hear me now, I'm going to tell you what you can question about my title First there is a notion of household Which has been criticized as a concept of privacy by the by the feminist feminist story theorists If you say that the private realm is just the household sphere, I'm going to come back to all of these topics just a brief Idea on why every title can be questions and then the totalitarianism point I don't know if you know that totalitarianism is a term which has been Defined in the 20th century to describe what is common between or what National socialism and socialism do have in common and that's why some people are not very happy with this talk It was this term. Sorry And then the word cyberspace I guess in this With this audience, I don't have to explain that it is rather Old-fashioned by now already like a 90s term and then I promised you that I'm going to talk about philosophical Perspective on privacy, but I'm going to talk about other concepts too because today's Privacy research is very interdisciplinary. Okay Okay That might be too loud Okay, so I'm going to talk about the definitions of other disciplines too. Is that my fault? No, it isn't And then yesterday a person pointed out to me that even the word privacy, of course, is problematic in itself because some people do claim that we are in a post-privacy era now and then Hannah Arendt as I'm going to explain later herself is also a kind of problematic theorists in some points So what I'm going to do today is I'm trying to briefly define what privacy means and then I'm going to say what Hannah Arendt means by privacy and I hope I can make some points about why we need to protect privacy and I'm going to draw on some examples from the current discussion today So there's one if there is one thing that privacy scholars and privacy activists do agree on then it is that privacy is hard to define and That's the reason why we very often use metaphors to describe The private for example the word realm the private realm the private sphere very often they are spatial images to grasp this concept of the private and Then there is another Problem that the German term that I use that are being used like privates fair or Kern bereich privaten Lebens, which is a term by the German constitutional court They don't have the exact same meaning as the word privacy in English So we have to deal with that too and a lot of these definitions are x-negative Negativo definitions, which means they do describe the opposite of the public or let's say the private is Only defined as the opposite of the public Which of course poses a question whether the private doesn't have Points in itself and and yet can be defined as a concept by its own And attempts to define Privacy are mostly normative And some of them are descriptive But as I brought this quote by be at a wrestler as nothing belongs by nature in the realm of private Of course those concepts are normative and very often they already claim that the private needs to be protected and there is close relation to other abstract nouns like freedom and security as for example, you know a lot of Politicians try to tell us that we only can have one of them and not all together So brief historical overview the first definition of Privacy can be seen in Aristotle's politics When he describes the difference between the oil cost, which is the household and the policy political public sphere But it has been questions whether this is really the exact same thing that we do mean when we talk about privacy and public publicity today So in the medieval times in Middle Ages The private public distinction didn't play a big role because the church was influencing everything so it's actually with the liberalist theorists of the 70s century that's a real debate about public and private does begin Even though some of them don't use the word privacy for example Thomas Hobbes, which I've named here as first example he talks about expression of freedom free expression of mind and About the religious freedom so but that can be seen as a private And then there is in the at the end of the 19th century a very Influential paper by Samuel Varen and Louis Brandeis, which some of you might know because they defined or they claimed a right to be let alone But those are lawyers. They're not philosophers and Then in the 20th century, I I've Norbert Elias who already Talked about the private before the second world war, but the others I've named here They are dealing with the private in Relation to what happened in the during the second world war or during the Shoah you have to say Very important also the feminist critique in the 1960s and 1970s. I already mentioned it earlier Then I brought some of the names of the feminist theorists who have written influential papers because Of course if we consider the private realm as a realm in to which the state of the government isn't allowed to interfere at all Then this realm can for example cover up violence against children And so of course there are legal issues with this and in Germany for example Related to this feminist critique as a marital rape, which means the Fahgewaltung in the air is only Strafbar, I use the German words since 1997 which means that a wife which has been raped by her husband Didn't have any have any chance to Report this to the police or she could report it But it wouldn't have been considered as a crime as far as they are as long as they are married as well as Education without violence. I translated it. It's that's a right of Gewaltfreie Erziehung for children for kinder in 2000 it's Yeah, in German we say it's the berühmte or feige die nicht schadet, which finally did become a crime And of course, there is the informationele selbstbestimmung the informational self-determination which has been defined by the Bundesverfassungsgericht the German Constitutional Court in 1983 in terms of the Microsensors Case sorry and Here we already see that those are all issues which are can be defined as private issues but they are so broad that scholars tried to Grasp them better by defining dimensions of privacy and for example, there is a proprietary privacy the local dimension of privacy the Decisional dimension of privacy an informational privacy and they're very important of the temporary aspects of privacy and To define those better. I'm again quoting Beatrice law Who says that decisional privacy which is closely related to? Decisional freedom actually Is a claim is when someone claims the right to protection from unwanted access in the sense of unwanted Interference or heteronomy in our decisions and actions. So we have to be able to make our own decisions and This word decisional privacy comes from the US American debate about abortion for example Then informational privacy. This is what we also call data protection It means when people claim access to information about them that they have no desire to see in the wrong hands and Then there is the local dimension of the private which is sometimes considered to be the Classical definition it is the right to protection against the admission of other people to spaces or areas and The proprietary dimensions very closely related to the letter 1 So I come to the philosopher. I'm going to talk about today. Hannah Arendt who is Political theorist from the 20th century. She was a German Jew and she had to emigrate from Germany in 1933 first to France then later in the 40s to USA and She was a philosopher before she had to emigrate, but then she said she doesn't want to touch any intellectual thing again Luckily she changed her mind on that later on because otherwise she wouldn't have written all these great works, but She first didn't write anything again because she said how could I with what is happening in Germany? How in Europe how could I just? Write philosophy again and so she she kind of changed to political theory and her most famous books are Her report on the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem Eichmann in Jerusalem and it has been criticized a lot because Yeah, it was a real big it caused the debate in The Jewish community in the States and also in Israel And two other famous books of hers are the origins of totalitarianism Which appeared already in was published in 51 already And the human condition which in German is called vita activa and this is also very interesting about aren't because a lot of her Works do have two separate versions like the English version She wrote and then she herself made the German translation and changed a lot of the text So she has been criticized as I already said about the Eichmann trial and she has been criticized because she was not a feminist and might even be considered to be anti-feminist and Her methods are kind of interesting because she has kind of an eclectic style and she quotes from the Bible and from poems And so it's really kind of a mix, but she said she wrote to be able to understand and that's what interested her She didn't want to write a coherent theory as such and One thing she was criticized about to was her Paper on the little rock debate. I'm going to come back to that later Hannah Arendt's motto as I call it here is this never ought have happened these set in the Geschehen Dürfen in German She meant by this as she Clarifies herself the Holocaust the Shoah, but not only as she says the number of the victims and the brutality of what has been done, but the mass fabrication of bodies these are her words that the The terror and the murder was industrialized And this is also the starting point from her political theory I give you a very brief overview about her ideas other than her ideas on the private which I will explain later because in fact, she is a Philosopher of the public actually The public realm was very important to her She wanted to protect it because it was what had been destroyed in totalitarian systems The realm in which people can come together and act freely together politically We've seen that interestingly in in the Arabic spring Arab spring Sorry, we're also people needed spaces to come together and and act together and here we also see that The totalitarian systems for her are different from what had been there before Because the public realm as aren't says was already destroyed and dictatorship before but the totalitarian systems also destroyed the private sphere So we need this public realm to act together politically and This action or how aren't defines it does have Unforseeable consequences and this is spontaneous thing which is in contrast to mere behavior very important for aren't is also the What what she's what she calls natality because usually philosophers since socrates Saying that what makes a human human is that he's mortal but aren't says before a human being is mortal They do have to be born to be able to start a new beginning and The other term which is important for is plurality Which means that we always are in the world with other human beings and we are always born into the world which is already made by human beings and The political tradition since Plato As well as the totalitarian systems. They tried to replace action with behavior as aren't calls it They only wanted people to behave because behavior apparently is predictable and whereas action isn't at all and One famous claim aren't made to was the so-called right to have rights because based on her experiences in the 20th century she said it happened that the rights only were for people who had a certain nationality or citizenship and not to everybody and a lawyer once told me when I when I when I mentioned this in a talk He was like yeah, but we have the universal Declaration of human rights. Why do we need this? But I guess yesterday in the talk from Anna about the NSA and has a lot of shows this problem came up again that sometimes the rights only are for universal rights only for people with a certain passport So what does aren't say about the private in the already mentioned book the human condition? She undertakes a historical analysis about what has been private before and she said that in the ancient Greek policies in antiquity the Public and the private have been separated by Wall which was the wall of laws actually the laws were like a pre-political Thing which they kind of were defined and then after this after the constitution of the police Existed like this and there were no possibility that the public affairs became private and the other way around but then as aren't says in modern times the private things or some private things came into the public sphere One example for this or the example for this is a political economy, which aren't says had been an Oxymoron for the for the ancients But now it's important to talk about Economic affairs in the public sphere and that's how the society came into being the social and Then there was the intimate which kind of was invented as she says to replace the private because people need this realm And so since it wasn't there anymore We had the social and the intimate and the public and the private were like merge into the society and Then in totalitarian systems as I already said they try to influence every aspect of human life And so ideology kind of influenced everything and according to aren't That's what they tried They didn't succeed to Entirely but This is a public private in the totalitarian systems Aren't herself makes clear that she is interested in the local dimension of the private and she says this is from a talk in 1975 Just right before her death She says that it should be clear that my distinction between private and public depends on the locality Where a person moves and very closely connected to this local dimension is a proprietary dimension In fact the dimensions are not separated Like exactly separated. They are they very much interfere with each other or they can interfere with each other But the proprietary dimension is as aren't different defines is it sorry The property is a Precondition for local privacy. She says privacy was like the other the dark and hidden side of the public realm And why to be political meant to attain the highest possibility of human existence? To have no private place of one's own like a slave meant to be no longer human So that this really sounds hard you can see why people were criticizing her Of course slaves were human, but she's talking about the ancient World view this is what usually is considered as private in our own philosophy and what I did in my PhD thesis is that I argued there is more to it and For example, I found an example for the decision of dimension of the private in her work But before I am going to read the quote I just want to briefly explain the context of this of these cobalt Because they are from the already mentioned article on little rock and little rock is just it's a city. It's the capital of Arkansas and This article by aren't was published in 1959 after she had first pulled it but then it was was still published and It's based on the fact that in 1954 there was a decision by the Supreme Court in the USA that African-American students were allowed to attend former all-white schools and So the governor of Arkansas you didn't agree with that as did others From the from some states And he sent troops to prevent the students from entering the school in little rock It was there were only like nine students But still that was what happened and then president Eisenhower sent troops to in September 1957 and so the The students were protected by military to go into school and so aren't saw a picture of that in the newspaper and there was a An afro-american girl who was like harassed by her her white Fellow students or not yet fellow students and aren't was like this shouldn't happen because we should never Fight our political fights With our children because the children they need to be protected She kind of didn't think it through so to say And in the end she kind of sided with race segregation. So that's why this this article is always with irritating I think it can be explained why she did this mistake, but Yeah, that's just the context of these quotes. I think it's important to have this in mind But still she says the government has a stake in the education of my child in so far as this child is supposed to grow up into a citizen But I would deny that government had any right to tell me in whose company my child received its instruction It's the right of parents to decide such matters for the children until they are grown-ups are challenged only by dictatorships and In the same paper she says the right of parents to bring up their children as they see fit is the right of privacy belonging to home and family Parents rise over their children are legally restricted by compulsory education and nothing else So the decision a dimension Parents should be able to decide for their children. There are also the temporal aspects of privacy. They are kind of clear, but in the Debates they are sometimes not Underlined enough. So that's why I bought this example again from from the Antiquity where Aaron says the disappearance of the gulf that the ancients had to cross daily to transcend the narrow realm of the household and Rise into the realm of politics is an essentially modern phenomenon Such a gulf between the private and the public still existed somehow in the villages though It had lost much of its significance and change its occasion entirely so we see here the How ahead of the household is allowed to cross the realm daily? and of course It was only the the male Greek citizens who had this privilege and not the other members of the household But the point was here that they had to cross it daily So the temporal aspect of privacy. I also brought two quotes for the informational dimension of privacy in Aaron's work and This is maybe something which doesn't isn't too surprising Today and for this audience actually and but I'm going to read this first quote The police in satellite countries kept cater cards for every citizen in the country On which presumably not only compromising information was recorded, but information on associations friends Family and acquaintances, which is much more valuable for totalitarian terror And so some of you might already see where I'm going with this Of course today. It's not not not a secret anymore We we heard the tour or some of you might have heard the talk by Simon yesterday about the stasi files Of course, this is the totalitarian system did keep files on every citizen But to clarify what I want to say I brought another a bit longer Quotation I'm sorry for that, but it's just so good that I have to read it entirely The O'Kranagh the charist secret police is reported to have invented the filing system In which every suspect was noted on a large card in the center of which his name was surrounded by red circle His political friends were designed they designated by smaller red circle and his non-political acquaintance by green ones, etc Cross relationships between the suspects friends political and non-political and the friends of his friends were indicated by lines between the respective circles Obviously the limitations of this method are set only by the size of filing cards and theoretically a gigantic single sheet could show the relation and cross relationships of the entire population and This is the utopian goal of the totalitarian secret police Now the police dream that one look at the gigantic map on the office wall should suffice at any given moment To establish who is related to whom and in what degree of intimacy and Theoretically this dream is not unrealizable Unrealizable, although its technical execution is bound to be somewhat difficult if this map really did exist Not even memory would stand in the way of the totalitarian claim to domination That's a map might make it possible to obliterate people Sorry without any traces as if that never existed at all Sorry. Yeah, and some of you might already know what I want to say because apparently aren't is talking about metadata without using the term and so there isn't even any more the Is this borders of the map or of the wall because we have this thing where people are giving their data voluntarily and this is just nothing surprising for this audience but a figure that an intern at Facebook made from metadata about friendships between different cities the quotas from the book was published in 1951 so it's from the end of the 40s But the method already is Since she's talking about the sarist secret police Yeah, the question was what year the quote was from but Yeah Yeah, it's already earlier. It's already, you know, like at the beginning of the of the 20th century So the metadata I'm no kind of jumping into the Into today to today to the current debate so Because aren't warned about Influencing our behavior and she said of course the tradition tried to replace behavior with action because That's what they can calculate with they can just foresee what we are going to do and yeah, as we all know That's what's been done. I just read something about China's citizen score, which is a new thing apparently they are Collecting all information and they they are actually giving points for the behavior for the correct behavior And for example if a Chinese person wants a visa for to come to Europe They must have a certain score to be able to leave the country And they are like collecting all information about yeah of internet searches, etc. And of course about Relationships, I mean it's important who's my friend when I want to leave the country isn't it? So yeah That of course as behavioral advertising which even has the word behavior in its title and where Companies are interested in our search behavior to predict it and to send us targeted advertising And of course there is a filter bubble I guess I don't have to explain it here Further that the problem is that the more I do a certain search the more I see the the results Which are related to this search interestingly there is native advertising which seems to be Newer phenomenon because yeah, we do use ad blockers, etc. And so native advertising means that Articles in newspapers are sponsored by companies which is also not new as such But it depends on whether we can see it or not And so this is also very interesting because it might also lead to the fact that some people see Certain articles with which others can't see etc then of course as profiting and redlining as price discrimination and Being able to order certain products if one lives in a certain area of the city and if you live in the in a less Faith what's the word in a less good neighborhoods, and you might not be able for example to order online and to describe all this I Have this concept It's just briefly from bear to rustle again that the cognitive and volatile Voluntary asymmetry of surveillance. I think that's a good idea to grasp these what is happening because she makes a difference between cognitive symmetry, which means I know that I am being under surveillance But I don't want to that would be Voluntative asymmetry and then there's of course Voluntative asymmetry because Theoretically it might be possible that I want to be supervised like if I get the credits from a from a customer cart and Yeah, you know like I want to want them to store my data I don't want them, but I want to have the bonus So that's what I'm doing and so I just think these are that's why I mentioned it here These are some interesting concepts to grasp what's really happening here I come back to Hannah Arendt because with all these sorry with all these examples we Can do one thing because what are and also told us was that we never should refuse from judging and Judging means because she I quoted this this never ought have happened phrase, but it also was her goal to Prevent what never ought have happened from happening again so what we can do to do to prevent it is to judge about political circumstances and We can judge by examples. Unfortunately. She never finished her book on judging, but there are some Lectures etc. Where we already get an impression on what she was aiming at so this judging is sorry Necessary to prevent moral catastrophes and we can do it by examples and now I'm going to I'm trying to combine the the present with aren't ideas from the 1950s and 70s Because I think if we see those attempts to influence our behavior like behavioral advertising Then we have to keep in mind aren't warning that we need to act and not just to behave As the totalitarian state's goal was to reduce human beings to just behaving creatures Another example on which we could use to to judge is cyber-mobbing There is aren't warning that the tyranny of the majority of children Can be very bad for one child If children are left alone, which is which each other I've elaborated on this in my thesis. So if every anyone is interested in reading more on this I'm happy to send you my thesis and Then we have the secret services because of course I was about to say aren't Analysis of the totalitarian state and the origins of totalitarianism Did also She also looked at secret services and she said that what they did was that they weren't Only secret services anymore, but they were secret police's so there were secret services with the possibilities of police forces and She also talks about the state inside of the states So if we look at these examples, we also should be very careful about what's happening today Aren't says that we should the protect the private as well as the public and with two last quotes I'm going to come to my conclusion Aren't says as the public realm has shrunk in the modern age The private realm has been very much extended and the words that indicate this extension is intimacy Today today this privacy is very much threatened again today. We are in the 1970s here in 1975 But the threats are rather from society than from government You have to discuss if aren't right here if the society which would be for example companies work together with the government But we should also protect the public realm because they are closely interrelated And if one of it dies the other one dies too So what is necessary for freedom is not wealth as aren't says what is necessary? Necessary security and a place of one's own Shielded from the claims of the public What is necessary for the public realm is that it be shielded from private interests Which have intruded upon it in the most brutal and aggressive form so the public and the private the protection of the private does have an Individual and a common value which is one point. I'm going to conclude on now we need to protect the private as well as the public sphere and The private for the public's sake but also the public for the private's sake because there is this Individual value of privacy which means it has a value for the individual for the citizens and Also a common value of privacy That means if all our Privacies are protected then it's also better for the system We need to act spontaneously and our individuality and Authenticity as it is called in today's privacy discourse need to be protected and as Aaron says we should never refuse from judging Thank you very much Thank you, Julia You now have the chance to ask some questions We have some microphones here one there one there there and You can also ask questions if you were watching the live stream in the IRC chat room So any questions? Yes You can start Yeah, thank you very much. I was really interested in these Fendi at diagrams you were showing about these different spheres overlapping and Interacting also because I'd always read it a bit differently or the way I sort of understood Vita Activa like in particular is that this rise of the social what you also which kind of coincides with this disappearance of the Gulf with what you quoted Seen that more as a kind of well the social sphere arising as a kind of Interface or maybe sort of API between the public and private realm which kind of informs either way and In that sense, I'd be interested in maybe just understanding these dynamics that go from both realms More clearly in that sense that Maybe there's also kind of danger in withdrawing in protecting the the private sphere In that sense that you can't partake in the social sphere in the in the political activity And I'd like to hear your take on that because that's like the downside or the other side of the medal really that there's some well What I always took from Vita Activa is that you can't really that partaking in the political sphere is Basically essential to actually live living your life Fully in that sense. So can you exist in this private sphere? And don't you think there's also kind of danger in in This step back in this sort of other direction any thoughts on that? Yeah. Yeah. Thank you for your question Actually, yeah, there is this problem which Aaron might have not seen or crit some Theorists have criticized her because she didn't see what exactly what you just described that we have this this strict separation between the private and the public and especially with this Politics with this with this ideal of the of the ancient polis Then there are certain people who are excluded from participating and that's as you said in Vita Activa and human condition people should be able to participate and People should be able to decide whether they want to present participate or not and your second quest I heard there were two questions and is about the social the reason why aren't is so Critical about the rise of the social is because the mass society was one reason Why the totalitarian systems could come into being that's how she puts it because in the mass society People only behaved They only had were interested in consuming in working or laboring actually And they were individualized and this is like a pre-con one of the preconditions Why is the totalitarian systems or that's a put a totalitarian systems could use because there were no longer the relationships between the people and no longer this kind of of Sticking together Sorry, but we have More questions here. I hope it's okay. So over there, please No, we're just switching When stating that We should never refuse to judge did aren't take into account that we can only judge based on the information we have available because what I'm seeing now is that Control over information is pretty much the The most important thing as we saw yesterday with the NSA and the sources Yeah, very important point. Thank you Actually, she kind of did Consider it or take it into account, but not in the way you just described it or we would describe it today because she said We have to judge by examples and she didn't kind of Make clear where these examples are she she proposed that these examples could for example come from fairy tales. There is this Ritter blaubart. I don't know what this is English a word like we if you have this really cruel Figure from a from a from a fairy tale if someone says I want him to be my friend then I should be very Suspicious and not be friends with that person anymore So she makes some propositions where we get the examples from but the information where we get those from is a problem I mean, of course, she was aware about propaganda because she's analyzing the totalitarian systems And she even says that mass Advertising has some parallels with propaganda. She already sees that but she said a lot of information So to finally answer a question should come from education or for children, for example, we should educate them like in a traditional way so they Learn traditional information and they learn about Authority and religion and but she doesn't make clear how those children who learn these traditional things can become revolutioners So self-determined citizens Sorry self-determined Yeah, exactly. Yeah, and even those those self-determined citizens who can act with something new and can start something new and can start a revolution Which is a good thing in her idea in her way of you. So thanks Are there any questions from the internet? No, okay, so we Come to you. Hi. Thank you very much for your talk I have a question. Well, the the background that you cite as being the foundation for our analysis is then all these social contract Philosophers like Locke and Hegel and Kant and then there's a clear distinction there between the private and Government or like the social contract being created to prevent terror But then with the rise of the social as being the normative entity which is creating that How are we to protect the private if if there's not very? There's not a very clear delineation between Private and public in this social if you take a private company, which in the United States is like a person Then how can you how can you protect privacy when that demarcation becomes very unclear? Mm-hmm. Yeah, that's that's a good question Because Aaron actually she wanted this demarcation as you say she said we need this to protect both the private and the public from the Interference from the other sphere But I think that it's it's more complex these days and that's Why her this Model from from the ancient times Doesn't apply anymore and that's why today scholars are using the dimensions because for example my local Privacy the local dimension of my privacy can be protect perfectly protected when I'm sitting at home But when at the same time the NSA has hacked my computer. It's like Not informational privacy that I have at that time So that's why we need to think about it more complex And that's also why we need to think that there are some cases where it is Okay when the private is that's I didn't want to say it like this But like with the feminist critique there are cases when there must be a possibility to interfere with what is happening in the Private realm it can't be Totally shielded because there must be some exceptions They have to be regulated and but the state is at the same time the one who needs to interfere in some cases But it's also the the actor who From whom we should be protected If the state can go out if the state says okay now we want this information from some private company That has been collecting data about their customers for example Then you have this constant switching between the private and the public that and how do you how do you legislate that? Sorry, could you I don't know I it just seems I guess it's complicated Yeah, it's complicated. Yeah, and just on the first part of your of your question as it's not only the background of a rent Although serious cycle I didn't quote them. I mentioned but it's all it's just a privacy discourse I was referring to but aren't of course is influenced and she's also quoting and referring to Locke for example Thank you. Thank you. So over here again. I have actually have a question from IRC from Akira Do you think surveillance also plays a role in destroying the public sphere the absence of which Sorry, could you speak more to the microphone? Apologies Do you think surveillance also plays a role in destroying the public sphere the absence of which would prepare the way to towards dictatorship? Also because of chilling effects, which discourage social participation and experimentation could you ask the question again? I'm sorry. I didn't understand very well. Sorry try to talk right into the mic Do you think surveillance also plays a role in destroying the public sphere? The absence of which would prepare the way towards the dictatorship because of chilling effects Which discourage social participation and experimentation? Thank you. No, I got yeah, of course Surveillance does play a huge role and I mean I have like the question was if I sing it But I have like my opinion and I read but I also was Taking into account surveillance in her analysis of the totalitarian states and It's like what's very important or what she's criticizing is that the neighbor might become more Dangerous than the police if he or she is spying on me and the surveillance is like really in as we saw also yesterday in times talk in all the all of the Spheres of the society and not only like from agents from the secret services and of course The surveillance sorry Does destroy the public sphere as because I can't behave as I would if there wasn't weren't Sorry Is there weren't any surveillance at all so by destroying my privacy it does destroy the public sphere Was that question answered. Yeah, so we go over here Hello, I just wanted to bring a little bit more Context of Foucault also and in the concept of biopolitics and what you were saying on behaviorism as well pretty interesting A notion of of the space of public But I wonder whether Hannah aren't also in the later later writings also was mentioning markets in as market as a form also of defining the the this fizzling gray border between the private and the public and privatization of the private information by the market as something that actually Erases this space of public and space of political as was understood by we start this what I mean by that is for example, and why I was meant was mentioning Foucault is arrival of the Ever penetrating notion of normality and that notion of normality occupying the space of Political let's say in politics becoming obsolete to the to the capitalism in this way and politics becomes to be to be Of the equation of the uncertainty to be of the danger for in that in this sense of of new balance of Effectiveness in the society and therefore the whole notion of public in our in becomes obsolete and therefore the totalitarianism arrives As as the necessity to increase these efficiencies in the society I wonder if if aren't in the later writings mentioned market in this way is something that comes into the into the play Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you for mentioning Foucault Unfortunately, apparently they didn't read each other or at least they didn't quote each other because they have a lot in common I think that would have been very interesting but yeah that actually That's already in the human condition from 1958 or partial published in 1958 that aren't is very critical about the market Not exactly in the way you just said or you would Foucault explain it but the market is already a problem in the modern times like when as a society we still have the slide here as when the society comes into being as aren't calls it the the market interests kind of do Take over the public sphere and that's the problem because there's no There's no space anymore for the political and aren't is things that the Economic affairs shouldn't be discussed in the public We have the social sphere for that as she says and we can we can discuss it, but it's not not a political Topic just a little follow-up. So she meant political and she defined political as a space of unpredictable As a space of unknown space where space of potentiality or rather political as a space of a dialogue or there's no such Is a space of dialogue, but it's also this Unpredictability does play a role and it's also an agonistic sphere because there should also every time be this again in the in the in this Greek way that people should be Debating and kind of Having a battle between their opinions. Thank you very much one last minute for one last question and one last answer Your turn. I tried to give my best. Can you hear me clearly? I have a question with regard to total errors and Up to now we have had Systems which are very much related to one person so to name Hitler to name Stalin and whom ever you want to call and now I see a change here to a multitude of corporations if you want to and The state and the politicians are like a Muppet show And I would like to have a question whether you want to elaborate on that Is there a change in the definition of total realism and how does this affect? Yes? Thank you I try to answer briefly There the aren't aren't idea of totalitarianism is with some others called the classical definition and after that people have expanded the definition of totalitarianism because for example for our end this Führer principles so to say like you only have one person at the top as you said is important for a Real totalitarian state, but then also later on she kind of changed it this a little bit and she speaks about totalitarian elements and and and Yeah, phenomenons But I am not sure we I think you're right and I think one could apply aren't Theory because she also sees that there are those puppets who are being played like in a puppet show by a puppet master But yeah, actually it's different from what you just described is different from what she defines as like clearly Rhetorium Okay. Thank you very much for your good talk about Hannah aren't and privacy