 And her current project is called The Luxury, 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 why we need to protect it because we want to prevent totalitarianism. Sorry, it's very early for me too. So I'm very delighted to hear that talk because I'm a fan of Anna Arendt myself. So it's your stage now, and have fun. Thank you for the kind introduction. I'm very excited to be here and that the organizers picked my talk. Yeah, 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? Is that better? Okay. Okay, so can you hear me better now? Should I speak louder? Does it help? Yeah, okay. Okay, thanks. You can hear me now. So if you can hear me now, I'm going to tell you what you can question of household, which has been criticized as a concept of privacy by the feminist 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 questioned. 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, with this term, sorry. And then towards cyber space, 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 perspectives on privacy, but I'm going to talk about other concepts to be called today's privacy research is very interdisciplinary. That might be too loud. Okay, so I'm going to talk about the dictionary 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 theorist in some point. 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 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're very often metaphor to describe the private, for example, the word realm, the private realm, very often there are spatial images to grasp this concept of the private. And then there is another problem that the German terms that are used, that are being used like privatsfehrer, or kernbereich privatenlebens, 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 ex-negative definitions, which means they do describe the opposite of the public, or let's say the private is the opposite of the public, which of course poses a question whether the private doesn't have points in itself and can be defined as a concept by its own. And the attempts to define privacy are mostly normative, and some of them are descriptive. But as I brought this quote by Beato Rosla, as nothing 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 a close relation to other aspect 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. 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 policy, the political public sphere, but it has been questioned whether this is really the same thing that we do mean when we talk about privacy and publicity today. So in the medieval times, in the Middle Ages, the private public distinction didn't play a big role because the church was influencing everything, so it's actually with the liberal theorists of the 70s century that the 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 the first example, he talks about expression of free expression of mind and about the religious freedom, so that can be seen as a private. And then there is, at the end of the 19th century, a very influential paper by Samuel Varen and Louis Brande because they defined or they claimed a right to be led alone, but those are lawyers, they're not philosophers. And then in the 20th century, I've know about 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, we have to say. Very important 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 the realm 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 is a marital rape, which means the Vergewaltigung der Ehe is only strafbar, I use the German word, since 1997, which means that a wife which has been raped by her husband didn't 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, das Recht auf Gewaltfreie Erziehung für Kinder in 2000. In German we say, die berühmte Ohrfeige, die nicht schadet, which finally did become a crime. And of course, there is the Informational-Debts-Bestimmung, 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 private issues, but they are so broad that scholars try to grasp them better by defining, and for example, there is a proprietary privacy, the local dimension of privacy, then informational privacy, and their very important are the temporary aspects of privacy, and to define those better, I'm again quoting Beato Roslar, who says that the decision of privacy which is closely related to decisional freedom actually, 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 the word decisional privacy comes from the US-American debate about abortion, for example. Then informational privacy, this is what we also call, it means when people claim access to information about them that they have no desire to see in the wrong hand, decision of the private, which is sometimes considered to be the classical definition is the right to protection against the admissions of other people to spaces or areas, and the proprietary dimension very closely related to the letter one. So I come to the philosopher I'm going to talk about today, Hannah Arendt, who is a 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 the 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, what is happening in Germany or in Europe, how could I just, and so she kind of changed her mind to political theory. And her most famous books are a report on the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem, Eichmann in Jerusalem, and it has been criticized a lot because, yeah, it was a real, it caused a debate in the state and also in Israel, and two other famous books of hers are the Origins of the Hellenism, which appeared already in, was published in 51 already, and the Human Condition, which in German is called Witteaktiva, and it's also very interesting about Arendt because a lot of her works do have two separate works, the English version she wrote, and then she made the German translation and changed a lot of the text. And she has been criticized because she was, and might even be considered to be anti-feminist, and her methods are kind of interesting because she has kind of eclectic style, and she quotes from the Bible and from the poem, be able to understand, and that's what, she didn't want to write a coherent theory. She was criticized about, two was her paper on the little rock debate, I'm going to come back to that. Hannah Arendt's motto, as I call it here, is this never ought have happened, these set in Igelschehen dürfen in German, meant by this, as she clarifies herself, the Holocaust, the Shoah, but not only, as she says, the number of things and the brutality of what has been done, but the mass fabrication of bodies, these are her words, 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 totalitarianism. The realm in which people can come together and act freely together, politically. We've seen that interestingly in the Arabic spring, sorry, where also people needed spaces to come together 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 Aran said, was already destroyed in 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 Aran defines it does have unforeseeable consequences and it's a spontaneous thing, which is in mere behavior. Very important for Aran is also what he calls natality, because then Socrates saying that what makes a human human is that he's mortal, but I think he's mortal, they do have to be born to be able to start a new beginning. And the other term, which is important for 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 traditions since Plato, as well as the totalitarian systems, they tried to replace action with behavior, as Aran calls it. They only wanted people to behave because behavior apparently is predictable and action isn't at all. And one famous claim Aran made too was the so-called right to have rights because based on her experiences in the 20th century she said, it happens that the rights only were for people who had a certain nationality or citizenship and a lawyer once told me 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 Tazooka, this problem came up again. The rights only are for universal rights are only for people with a certain passport. So what does Aran 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 policy in antiquity the public and the private have been separated by a 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 policy it existed like this and there were no possibility that the public affairs became private. Aran 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 Aran says had to oxymoron for the ancients but now it's important to talk about economic affairs. It's the public sphere and that's how the society came in. 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 merged into the society. And then into the Italian systems as Aran specifies to influence every aspect of human life and so ideology kind of influenced everything and according to Aran, that's what they tried. They didn't succeed to entirely but the public's private in the totalitarian systems. Aran herself makes clear that she is in since 1975, just right before her death she says that it should be clear that my distinction between private and public is related to the earth and very closely connected to the local dimension and very closely connected to the local dimension is the proprietary dimension of privacy. As I said, they are not separated, they influence each other. The proprietary dimension is defined as the property is a precondition for local privacy. She says that the property is a requirement for the private, for the local privacy. The possibility of human existence. To have no private place of one's own as a slave means no longer being human. And that sounds very harsh. You can understand why people criticized her for that. And of course the slaves were human but she talks here about ancient worldviews. That's what normally happens as a private in Aran's texts. In my doctoral thesis I have further discussed this and a dimension of decision of privacy in their texts. These quotes come from the already mentioned Little Rock article by Aran. Little Rock is the capital of Arkansas. The article was published in 1959 and based on the fact that in 1964 the decision of the Supreme Court of the USA was made that black children were allowed to study together with white children. The governor of Arkansas didn't agree with that and sent troops to stop the black students from attending the school in Little Rock. That was only about nine black students but that's how it happened. Then President Eisenhower sent troops there and the military then protected the black students so that they could go to school. Aran saw a picture of a African American girl who was harassed by her white students or not. And Aran thought that this shouldn't have happened because our political struggles shouldn't have to do with the children because the children should be protected. She didn't really think about it until the end and ended up on the side of racial segregation. That's why it might be a bit uncomfortable. But this context should be taken into account when we look at these quotes. The government is also responsible for the education of a child in this case as a child to become a citizen. But I would say that the government would discuss the law that my child should follow. The right of parents to decide the right of parents to decide the right of parents to decide until they grow up is only demanded by dictators. The right of parents to raise their children is a right of privacy that belongs to family and home. The right of parents to raise their children is only demanded by the government. There are some private aspects that are also half clear. But in the debate they won't always underline enough. That's why I brought this example from the old one where people always had to leave their country that the public can go out. It is a modern phenomenon. The public has... The chairman of the household allowed the private fair to be automatically separated. That was of course a male privilege. The question was, of course, that you had to do it every day. I have... Two quotes for the dimensional aspect of privacy. And that is perhaps something that is not surprising nowadays. It is just before this audience, but I will now read the first quote. The police in satellite states had card cards for every citizen in the country. On which probably not only information was found, but also information on associations, friends, family and acquaintances who are much more valuable for totalitarian terror. And of course you will probably already know what I want to talk about. You probably heard yesterday in the talk of Simon about the Stasi Act. But to clarify what I want to say about it, I have brought another very long quote with me. But it is so good that I want to read it in full. It means that the Tsarist secret police, which also had found a special registry procedure in Rana, where every Russian suspect was found on a huge card by a red circle in which his name was marked. Smaller red circles with the circle of the main suspect marked his political, green circles his not-political acquaintances. Obviously this method has the entire population so to catalogize that you not only yourself, but also the memory of the absolute master, your limits only on the size of the card. The technologically police under totalitarian conditions can take a look at the huge card in the office wall to find out who has to whom. And this dream is only a bit difficult in its technical conductivity. If this wallcard could make it possible for people to really disappear without a trace, then it would never have happened. Although its technical execution claim to domination such a map might make it possible to obliterate people without any traces. You already know what I'm going to say now, because obviously Hannah Arendt talks about metadata without using the term. These limits of the card actually no longer exist because we have this thing where people give up their data freely and of course it's not surprising for this listenership and this is a picture that a practitioner made on Facebook about friendships in different countries the quote is a book that was published in 1951 at the end of the 40s. She talks about the secret police of the Tsar. The question was, what was the quote? But of course it's about a phenomenon that took place much earlier in the early 20s. I know kind of jumping into the, to today, to today, to today, and because Arendt warned about influencing our behavior and he said, all of us have the right to replace behavior with action because, totally in the tradition, you tried to handle behavior because that's just calculable. You can see what we're going to do and as we all know, that's exactly what just happened. I just read something about China's citizen score. Information about all the citizens is collected and they get points for correct behavior. For example, if a Chinese citizen asks for a visa, for example, for Europe they have to reach a certain number to leave the country. They collect all the information, for example, by searching for questions and of course it's always about relationships between men. The question is, who is my friend? With whom am I friends when I want to leave the country? Then of course there's behavioral advertising, so behavior marketing. And companies are interested in our third behavior to, of course, very much for our behavior, to say it beforehand and to send us to our approved advertising. Then there's the phenomenon of filter blaster. I don't have to explain that in this context. And what's the point? The more I search, the more I search, the more my search results are also approved in my search. Then there's native marketing and native advertising. That's a new phenomenon, because of course we use all ad blockers. And native advertising is, that is, articles in newspapers from companies are paid. That's not new to us either. But the question is, of course, whether we can recognize it as such or not. And that's very interesting that some people see articles that others don't. And then there's profiling and redlining. So that's price discrimination. For example, that you can only order certain products if you live in certain areas of a city or if you live in a less good neighborhood than you might be able to. If you live in a less good neighborhood than you might be able to. And to describe all of this, to describe all of this, I'm going to use the concept again by Beate Rösler, the cognitive asymmetry of surveillance and the cognitive asymmetry of surveillance. And that describes quite well what happens, because there's a distinction between cognitive asymmetry. I know that I'm under surveillance, but I don't want to be a qualitative asymmetry and a qualitative asymmetry that I want to be supervised. For example, if I get bonus points on my bonus card, then I want to save the data because I want to have the bonus. So that's the reason why I call this a context, because the interesting concepts are the descriptions that actually just happened here. I'm going to go back to Hannah Arendt. I'm going to go back to Hannah Arendt. I'm going to go back to Hannah Arendt. Because these examples we can do one thing. We can do something now, because what Hannah Arendt also said is never to keep us in custody. And to keep us in custody, I would have never been allowed to do this. But that's what's happening now. It's about preventing what never happened to happen again. And it's about political conditions. For example, Arendt never finished her book about judgments. But we can get an impression of what she was doing. And this judgment is necessary to prevent moral catastrophes. And we can now orient ourselves with our example. And now I would like to compare the ideas of Arendt from the 1950s and 1970s. Because if we see these attempts to influence our behavior, like native advertising, then we have to act and not just keep us in custody. Hannah Arendt warned us about this. Another example would be cyber-mobbing. Arendt's warning was that tyranny for the tyranny of the majority if the children are left alone. I wrote about it in my doctorate. So if you're interested, I'd like to send it to you. And then we have the secret services. Of course Arendt's analysis of the role of secret services in totalitarian states. She also dealt with secret services. And there were not only secret services, but also secret police. So secret services with the power of the police. And then she spoke about the state within a state. And if we look at the examples, then we should be very careful with everything that happens today. Arendt said that we should protect the private as well as the public. And she said that the area of the public in the modern context has been very exposed to the private sector. And the word that this expression symbolizes is intimacy. Today, this privacy is very dangerous. But the threats are more from society than from the government. We have to discuss this now. For example, whether or not the society, for example companies work together with the government. But they are strict with each other. And Arendt says that what is necessary for freedom is not wealth. Security is necessary and a place protected by the public. What is necessary for the area of the public is that it is protected by the private interests that are imposed on them in the most aggressive way. So the public privacy, the protection of the private, has an individual and a community value. And this is a point that I would like to close with now. We want to protect the privacy as well as the public. And there is an individual value of privacy. That means it has a use for the individual for the citizen and a public use of privacy. That means when all our private interests are protected it is better for the system. We have to act spontaneously and our individuality and the authenticity as we call it nowadays in the discussion should remain valid and as Arendt says it is important to keep this down. Thank you. You have the translation of the lecture. I don't have the title. House of Totalitarianism and Cyberspace Philosophical Perspectives on Privacy Drawing on the Example of Hannah Arendt. The translation of the lecture is distinguished by Advi, Nils and Friederike. We are very pleased with the translation of the lecture. If you are interested please contact us at c3lingo or at the hashtag c3t Thank you. There is one more question. I was very interested in the Venn Diagram that you showed. Especially because I read something different about Hannah Arendt. She is in private life and is both informed. In that sense I would be interested to know which maybe there is a danger if you can't participate in political activities because that is maybe the key part of the medal that what I have always taken is that you can't really participate in the political sphere. And that is actually necessary to lead a complete life. And that's why I don't think there is a threat to go in the other direction. Yes, there is a problem that Arendt has seen that she was attacked by others because she didn't see what you just described. If we have this strict separation between private and public and the ideal of the ancient polis then there are some people who will be excluded from the public sphere to participate. She says that people should actually have the opportunity to participate in the public sphere and decide whether they want to participate or not. And the second point why Hannah Arendt is so critical about the rise of the social is that the kind of society was the target for the rise of the totalitarian system because people in the mass society said they were only interested in consuming and working and they were polled and that's why totalitarian systems could work because there was no other connection between the people and the society. I think it's better first. When Arendt said that we should never decide she then thought that we should decide to have a certain information like for example at the NSA research institute a very important point, thank you she had it in a certain way in her view but not exactly as you just said or as we would describe it today she said we have to judge by examples and she suggested that these examples could come from fairies for example which is a very cruel figure from a fairy tale and if someone would say I want to be friends with this figure then you should be careful and maybe not be friends with this person she made a few examples but the information about where we get these examples that's a bit problematic and she even says mass advertising has to do with propaganda but she still sees it as she says that information should come from education in a very traditional way she learns traditionally information about religion and authority but she doesn't know how the children who learn these traditional things can be revolutionaries self-determined self-determined self-determined citizens self-determined citizens who can act with new things and revolution in a positive way thank you for your turn you say that the background for Aryans analysis these social philosophies like Fjorg and Hegel and the rising social as a new entity who as always we protect the privacy there is no clear distinction between privacy and publicity in the social if you have privacy in the USA which is treated as a person and this demarcation is very unclear Aryans actually wanted a very clear separation between the private and public but to protect them from the other sphere but I think nowadays it's even more complex and that's why the model is no longer related to the antique and that's why researchers use dimensions nowadays for example the local sphere of my privacy is perfectly intact but at the same time the NSA can hack my computer so another part of my privacy is being attacked so the whole model is much more complex and we also have to see that there are some cases in which it's okay if the private sphere is attacked especially in the direction of feminism there is the suggestion that it has to be regulated but it can be attacked in the privacy of people and the state sometimes has to intervene in privacy but the question is who we have to protect and if we want to take the information from a private company this change between privacy and public and can you repeat the question? I think it's complicated and the first part of the question it's not only the background of different theorists but also the privacy of the course Ahren for example who is also Locke I have a question from RSE do you think the surveillance also plays a role to destroy the public? Do you think the surveillance also destroys a role in the destruction of the public which of course would also require the dictators to repeat the question do you think the surveillance also plays a role to destroy the public without public fair there is also totalitarianism because without public there is no participation and no experiment in society now comes the answer of course the surveillance plays a role I have my own opinion and Ahren's but but I look at how Ahren deals with surveillance and what is very important or what she criticizes that your neighbor can be more dangerous than the police if he or she observes you because surveillance is in all spheres of society and not just of secret services and secret of course the surveillance destroys the public space because I can't because I can't behave or act as I would without surveillance always when private fairs are destroyed the public space is destroyed Hello, I wanted a little context of Coco in the disc it is a very interesting idea of the public space and I wanted to ask if Hannah Arendt sees the market as a form as the market the connection between public and private so there is a connection so that the market the whole the whole concept of public is overflowing and totalitarianism comes as a result of the necessity to increase efficiency and I just wonder if Hannah Arendt has mentioned the market thank you for calling Coco luckily they didn't read and didn't quote it would have been very interesting and yes even in Vita Activa Hannah Arendt is very critical about the market not exactly how you describe it but the market is a problem in the modern society when the social is created take over market interests the public space and that is a problem because there is no more space for the political and Arendt thinks that economic opportunities are being viewed by the public we have the social but it is not a political topic it is a question it says politically and it means the political as a space of potentiality of unforeseeable yes it is a place of dialogue but it is also unforeseeable plays a role it should always be in the Greek sense an argon that people debate and think about their opinions after one minute for one last question and one last answer can you hear me? I have a question regarding totalitarianism so far we had systems that were very strong with one person Hitler, Stalin would always be and now I think to see a change to a plurality of companies and the states and the politicians are like puppets and I would have the question is there a change in the definition of totalitarianism and what does that bring with me thank you I will try to answer this quickly but the idea of totalitarianism is the classic definition of totalitarianism and later the definition was expanded for Arendt is the leader principle as you said there is only one person at the top it is very important for a real totalitarian state but later she turns it off and talks about totalitarian elements and phenomena but I am not sure I think you are right and you can still use Arendt's theory because she also sees that there are these puppets that are used by a puppet player but what you just described is definitely different from what Arendt is defined as pure totalitarianism thank you