The concept of privacy is outdated and dangerous.

Privacy is essentially about rights and property - especially intellectual property. The current thinking surrounding this entire concept is outdated and dysfunctional. It is misunderstood, badly legislated for and there are no effective global rules or agreements that control the flow of personal, private and confidential intellectual property (i.e. your privacy).

Privacy, just like intellectual property, is a complicated and multi-faceted subject. Any attempts to simplify it or trivialise it will not work. Worse, they will be damaging and convince us all that the subject either cannot be dealt with by our elected caretakers or must never be 'controlled' by anyone who could possibly be corrupted or coerced (so that rules out humans).

But privacy must be dealt with. This subject can no longer be kicked down the road as 'too hard' because this issue affects our freedoms and our ability to live without fear.

You are walking down a high street. Your image and movements are being captured by half a dozen video cameras. Your location is being recorded by three mobile telephone providers. An advertising 'sniffer' in a shopfront you are walking past has detected you via your mobile phone and knows you might be interested in something they are promoting (it's a half price offer on an item you desire but can't afford - do you want that message?). You are wearing a T-shirt with a logo of your favourite film series. You are following a commonly executed route (it's to train station that leads to your home, but there is a delay on that line that you don't yet know about and if you turn left and catch a bus in 200 yards that leaves in five minutes you will get home 75 minutes earlier than your usual route will allow - do you want that information?). You are using your phone (which is also recording your location, heart rate and speed over ground) to send a text message and to browse information which you use to send flowers to your partner. You read the news as a truck rolls past broadcasting a song.

Who owns that intellectual property? Who owns your image, now on a secure net, being transferred from server to server for 'security' purposes, analysed by AI recognition software? Who owns your location, the phone companies? Who owns your buying and interest habits? Who owns that film logo? Who have you decided to allow to learn about your habits and preferences so they can let you know useful information - and did they charge you, or do you get royalties when they benefit from that data? Did that bus company pay to tell you about your alternative route (that you really, really wanted to know)? That text message you sent - encrypted? Do you own the copyright? That order for flowers, is it sellable to a marketing company? Is the data valuable to a flower grower in Holland? If it is, should you get a micro-payment if the florist benefits? You read the news for free - perhaps - is it really free? Who owns the rights to the song you just heard from that truck? Do you own your heartbeat?

Ownership is king. Privacy starts with that concept. Everything else is licensed either deliberately and directly or as a consequence of usage/occupation/citizenship/law. Only then, when this system is entrenched, ubiquitous and accountable can you have true privacy.

You don't want the privacy that exists now (it doesn't anyway). This privacy will kill you. It will prevent the systems that are designed to protect you from knowing when you are in danger. You want ownership and permission based licenses and control and you want to license that control to a system that will benefit and protect you.

We survived 1984. Now we need better systems.