and its implications for providing scrutiny, but not a rigid, quickly-outdated legalregulation for privacy:
"At issue here is much more than an accurate definition of privacy; at the very heart of this discussion is the appropriateness of social formulations of thegood, the point of contention that separates communitarians from bothindividualists and social conservatives. For individualists, who strongly opposesocial formulations of the good and believe that each person should be free toform and pursue his or her own good, and who thus seek to maximize bothprivate choice and privacy, the distinction matters little. For social conservatives,especially religious fundamentalists who would rely on the state to enforce their values -- for instance, to suppress pornography -- and who are willing to curtail both private choices and privacy, the difference between these two concept is alsoof limited import. In contrast, the distinction is crucial for communitarians (atleast for responsive ones), who hold that important social formulations of thegood can be left to private choices -- provided there is sufficient communalscrutiny!
That is, the best way to curtail the need for governmental control and intrusion is to have somewhat less privacy.
This point requires someelaboration.""The key to understanding this notion lies in the importance, especially tocommunitarians, of the 'third realm'. This realm is not the state or the market (orindividual choices), but rather the community, which relies on subtle socialfostering of prosocial conduct by such means as communal recognition,approbation, and censure. These processes require the scrutiny of some behavior, not by police or secret agents, but by friends, neighbors, and fellow members of voluntary associations."
The first dimension of privacy is one of openness versus closedness. Whenpeople speak of being a "private person", exhibiting "privateness", they mean that they do not share a lot about themselves to outsiders or even those close to them. They keeptheir hand close to their chest. They are not very "open", which implies that someone would freely share a lot of details about himself. Thus on a continuum, some people are
Etzioni, Amitai. "The Limits of Privacy", Basic Books, 2000, pp. 212-213