The Great Exchange: Giving Up a Right to Privacy to Discover Lasting Intimacy
The Great Exchange: Giving Up a Right to Privacy to Discover Lasting Intimacy
[Originally published September 29, 2026]
Introduction
“I always feel like somebody’s watching me, and I have no privacy” are 1984 song lyrics that sum up the spirit of our age. [1] The growing desire of many today is to be left alone, and they seek to eliminate all intrusion into their private lives. Easier said than done!
We are watched on our commutes to work and errands to the store. Flock cameras, described as “a different kind of animal,” are specialized, AI-powered, automated license plate-readers, made by a company named Flock Safety. These devices automatically record vehicle details and movements on public thoroughfares. There are presently 120,000 cameras across 49 states that scan 20 billion vehicles each month. They have been described as an “uninvited eye,” and opposed because “you cannot opt out.” Some believe that this phenomenon impacts the privacy of citizens, while others see benefits for law enforcement agencies in capturing criminals and preventing crimes.
We are watched as consumers. Businesses also have access to the personal data of hundreds of millions of Americans. A major grocery chain, for example, earned by selling customer information, approximately $527 million in a recent year, which represents 35% of the company’s alternative profit! The buyers of the information then tracked 63 million shoppers who were enrolled in the store's loyalty program. The selling of their consumer data to marketers holds implications for consumer privacy.
Furthermore, a major retailer uses Bluetooth tracking devices in its shopping carts and hand baskets. While the tracking does not directly access data from a customer’s mobile device, the company uses the devices to understand customer traffic patterns and shopping behavior. The practice does not directly infringe upon customer privacy; however, it can become problematic if the retailer matches the shopping cart’s Bluetooth ID with a shopper’s smart phone, for example, through its loyalty program. A part of consumer concern stems from the fact that Bluetooth tags are completely invisible and operative without shopper awareness, even though customers do receive various benefits from loyalty programs, in terms of pinpoint advertising and discounts on goods and services.
We are even watched as worshipers! A growing number of churches, traditionally seen as sanctuaries from the world, have now become zones for surveillance, where the use of digital marketing strategies like geofencing delivers targeted advertisements and invitations within a specific “virtual perimeter.” The reach even extends to neighboring church parking lots or buildings! [2] Digital “sheep stealing,” as it has been termed, raises broader privacy concerns related to location tracking. The popular song quoted above also states “I want to be left alone in my average home.” These circumstances raise the question of whether privacy can be achieved anywhere in our contemporary world.
We are watched on our commutes to work and errands to the store. Flock cameras, described as “a different kind of animal,” are specialized, AI-powered, automated license plate-readers, made by a company named Flock Safety. These devices automatically record vehicle details and movements on public thoroughfares. There are presently 120,000 cameras across 49 states that scan 20 billion vehicles each month. They have been described as an “uninvited eye,” and opposed because “you cannot opt out.” Some believe that this phenomenon impacts the privacy of citizens, while others see benefits for law enforcement agencies in capturing criminals and preventing crimes.
We are watched as consumers. Businesses also have access to the personal data of hundreds of millions of Americans. A major grocery chain, for example, earned by selling customer information, approximately $527 million in a recent year, which represents 35% of the company’s alternative profit! The buyers of the information then tracked 63 million shoppers who were enrolled in the store's loyalty program. The selling of their consumer data to marketers holds implications for consumer privacy.
Furthermore, a major retailer uses Bluetooth tracking devices in its shopping carts and hand baskets. While the tracking does not directly access data from a customer’s mobile device, the company uses the devices to understand customer traffic patterns and shopping behavior. The practice does not directly infringe upon customer privacy; however, it can become problematic if the retailer matches the shopping cart’s Bluetooth ID with a shopper’s smart phone, for example, through its loyalty program. A part of consumer concern stems from the fact that Bluetooth tags are completely invisible and operative without shopper awareness, even though customers do receive various benefits from loyalty programs, in terms of pinpoint advertising and discounts on goods and services.
We are even watched as worshipers! A growing number of churches, traditionally seen as sanctuaries from the world, have now become zones for surveillance, where the use of digital marketing strategies like geofencing delivers targeted advertisements and invitations within a specific “virtual perimeter.” The reach even extends to neighboring church parking lots or buildings! [2] Digital “sheep stealing,” as it has been termed, raises broader privacy concerns related to location tracking. The popular song quoted above also states “I want to be left alone in my average home.” These circumstances raise the question of whether privacy can be achieved anywhere in our contemporary world.
“A Right to Privacy?”
We may easily sense from these examples that there are differing definitions and applications of privacy which include benefits and burdens. Not all the above circumstances are inherently illegal or unethical. However, considerable “grey area” exists when determining the meaning of privacy and when an infringement occurs. One wonders what a “right to privacy” means, and if there is any way to protect individuals and groups from violations of this freedom.
History: Privacy came to the forefront relatively late in human history. The notion began to be discussed in the late nineteenth century, notably, at a time when photography was introduced and when various social behaviors, like same-sex relationships, were cast into the spotlight. The seminal idea was rooted in the democratic ideal of a right to life, liberty, and property; therefore, the aim was to enjoy life and to be left alone. Ultimately, privacy emerges from the core ethical principle of individual freedom, meaning a “respect for autonomy.” (Personal freedom and choices will be discussed below.) Rights to be left alone in a democracy are secured by laws; hence, much legal discussion continues about how to secure this privacy aim.
Law: The phrase in legal terms simply means “the right of a person to be free from intrusion into or publicity concerning matters of a personal nature.” Americans, who are radically individualistic cherish their “right to privacy” and increasingly protest what they perceive to be any intrusion into their lives. Nevertheless, the U.S. Constitution does not specifically use the phrase, even though elements of it may be found in the Bill of Rights. [3] The rubric has become a significant concept in biomedicine as well.
Medicine: Anytime people interact with medical practitioners, their bodily dignity and privacy become a central concern. A right to privacy has become a key medical-ethical principle and factors prominently in medicine where it means “a state of limited access.” Such a right, for example, is difficult to enforce in medicine, especially with the use of digital record-keeping and sharing, as well as teams of practitioners attending to individual patients. [4]
Public square: A right to privacy, as the introduction above suggests, has surfaced increasingly in the public arena too. Most people on this planet live in an impersonal “macro-world,” filled with complex rules and jargon. For example, news media have recently begun to broadcast video reports of local government meetings where angry citizens struggle to understand why noisy (loud humming) and resource-draining data centers are legally permitted to operate in their communities.
Ever-present noise. Truly, noise is “omnipresent” and impacts much of our private lives. It interferes in the workplace (e.g. open-plan offices), in homes, schools, restaurants, arenas, and even compromises safety whenever it interferes with auditory warning signals. Noise affects health when it leads to noise-induced hearing loss. Controlling sound levels in contemporary culture, especially, in urban areas, presents a genuine challenge. Realistically, the physical world is inundated by a cacophony of noises, chaos, and often myriad distractions.
I believe, however, that there is a deeper point to consider when we ponder the implications of privacy.
History: Privacy came to the forefront relatively late in human history. The notion began to be discussed in the late nineteenth century, notably, at a time when photography was introduced and when various social behaviors, like same-sex relationships, were cast into the spotlight. The seminal idea was rooted in the democratic ideal of a right to life, liberty, and property; therefore, the aim was to enjoy life and to be left alone. Ultimately, privacy emerges from the core ethical principle of individual freedom, meaning a “respect for autonomy.” (Personal freedom and choices will be discussed below.) Rights to be left alone in a democracy are secured by laws; hence, much legal discussion continues about how to secure this privacy aim.
Law: The phrase in legal terms simply means “the right of a person to be free from intrusion into or publicity concerning matters of a personal nature.” Americans, who are radically individualistic cherish their “right to privacy” and increasingly protest what they perceive to be any intrusion into their lives. Nevertheless, the U.S. Constitution does not specifically use the phrase, even though elements of it may be found in the Bill of Rights. [3] The rubric has become a significant concept in biomedicine as well.
Medicine: Anytime people interact with medical practitioners, their bodily dignity and privacy become a central concern. A right to privacy has become a key medical-ethical principle and factors prominently in medicine where it means “a state of limited access.” Such a right, for example, is difficult to enforce in medicine, especially with the use of digital record-keeping and sharing, as well as teams of practitioners attending to individual patients. [4]
Public square: A right to privacy, as the introduction above suggests, has surfaced increasingly in the public arena too. Most people on this planet live in an impersonal “macro-world,” filled with complex rules and jargon. For example, news media have recently begun to broadcast video reports of local government meetings where angry citizens struggle to understand why noisy (loud humming) and resource-draining data centers are legally permitted to operate in their communities.
Ever-present noise. Truly, noise is “omnipresent” and impacts much of our private lives. It interferes in the workplace (e.g. open-plan offices), in homes, schools, restaurants, arenas, and even compromises safety whenever it interferes with auditory warning signals. Noise affects health when it leads to noise-induced hearing loss. Controlling sound levels in contemporary culture, especially, in urban areas, presents a genuine challenge. Realistically, the physical world is inundated by a cacophony of noises, chaos, and often myriad distractions.
I believe, however, that there is a deeper point to consider when we ponder the implications of privacy.
Noise echoes loudest in our empty souls
Each of these elements of the larger world around us are deeply rooted in our human desire for safety, security, and significance. Aside from being difficult to define and fraught with complexities, a contributing factor to a failure to secure a right to personal privacy may be due to our own empty souls. T.S. Eliot summed it up well when he wrote, “Where shall the world be found, where will the word resound? Not here, there is not enough silence.” I fear that many humans decry the noise, but somehow find it to be an escape from the spiritual cries of their innermost souls for real meaning and relationships. There is “Good News!”
An Invitation to Intimacy with God
The deafening hum of the noisy world of physical reality no longer distracts us when we choose to return to the God who lovingly and justly created and rules over the universe. We do so by finding him in the world and his Word through our inner stillness (Genesis 1:1; John 1:1-14). Many of the privacy issues stated above have their origin in external circumstances; however, a “retreat” from the world, and its hurts, begins deep within our own hearts. Several core biblical principles ought to be considered when we think about our responsibilities regarding privacy.
Moving from privacy toward intimacy
Invite God into your innermost life. God created you for a relationship; thus, He requires total access to your life, for your benefit. Our great longing should be to worship the Father who lovingly fashioned us in His own image and gave us a life purpose (Genesis 1:26-31). However, like the first couple, we plunge willfully into sin, choosing to reject God’s will in striking fashion. Like Adam and Eve, we seek to hide from God in our shame. They hid in the garden, while we hide behind countless external desires, like the pursuits of money, relationships, and power, in all their variations. “When God stands before us, we stand before him. Refusing to worship him is a way of trying to avoid his face and his eyes” (italics mine). [5] Even so, God pursues us, seeking those who are lost (John 1:14, 29; 10:10b).
The Lord calls out rhetorically, “Where are you?” (See 3:9-11; John 3:16-17). Of course, God had made the garden and knew every square inch, so He prompts Adam to consider his wrongdoing and to restore the broken relationship. He does the same with us. God frames the source of our problem in the singular, “you.” He focuses on our individual accountability. Sadly, like Adam, we feel a bit exposed by God’s query, and skirt the question (3:10, 12). We use our freedom to hide from God and shield our heart from the Savior who loves us! Dallas Willard states, “The so-called 'right to privacy,' of which so much is made in contemporary life, is in very large measure merely a way of avoiding scrutiny in our wrongdoing.” [6] The first move we should make is to return to the Father and place our lives in his care. He gives us meaning amid the surrounding meaninglessness.
Secondly, cease selfish discipleship. We too often treat the Lord as though he invades our privacy. Jesus drives the point home for us in Mark 8:34. He calls us to deny ourselves and follow Him. He does not demand that we renounce ourselves, which would undermine our God-given inherent value and dignity, but to “cease to make self the object of one’s life and actions.” Christ does not call us to self-hatred or self-rejection; instead, he states that we will understand the meaning of life best when we decide not to make our existence to revolve around ourselves.
The Lord calls out rhetorically, “Where are you?” (See 3:9-11; John 3:16-17). Of course, God had made the garden and knew every square inch, so He prompts Adam to consider his wrongdoing and to restore the broken relationship. He does the same with us. God frames the source of our problem in the singular, “you.” He focuses on our individual accountability. Sadly, like Adam, we feel a bit exposed by God’s query, and skirt the question (3:10, 12). We use our freedom to hide from God and shield our heart from the Savior who loves us! Dallas Willard states, “The so-called 'right to privacy,' of which so much is made in contemporary life, is in very large measure merely a way of avoiding scrutiny in our wrongdoing.” [6] The first move we should make is to return to the Father and place our lives in his care. He gives us meaning amid the surrounding meaninglessness.
Secondly, cease selfish discipleship. We too often treat the Lord as though he invades our privacy. Jesus drives the point home for us in Mark 8:34. He calls us to deny ourselves and follow Him. He does not demand that we renounce ourselves, which would undermine our God-given inherent value and dignity, but to “cease to make self the object of one’s life and actions.” Christ does not call us to self-hatred or self-rejection; instead, he states that we will understand the meaning of life best when we decide not to make our existence to revolve around ourselves.
Conclusion
The singer of the song in the introduction wanted to be left alone in his average home. In contrast, the solution to the frustrating pursuit of privacy begins with a desire for intimacy with the Heavenly Father! He, in fact, invites us into his home (Psalm 23:6; John 14:1-3). We discover that the answer to our quest for privacy comes when we replace our devotion to self with a loving commitment to God and his way (Proverbs 3:5-6). We must choose daily to place the divine will before our self-will. In so doing, the noisy world around us goes silent and our headlong rush to fulfill out-of-control desires ceases (Matthew 6:19-33).
We then discover that the Lord provides food on the table (bread, 8:1-9), health for the body (healing, 8:22-26), and guidance for the way (life plan, 8:27-30). He fulfills all of life’s core values. If I may state it this way, His “Loyalty Club” provides earthly and eternal benefits! The Lord simply calls us to trust Him to provide those things that we need and to hunger for righteousness (Matthew 5:3), apply our strength and minds to follow Him (Deuteronomy 6:5; Luke 10:27), and entrust our entire life to His plan (John 14:6).
We then discover that the Lord provides food on the table (bread, 8:1-9), health for the body (healing, 8:22-26), and guidance for the way (life plan, 8:27-30). He fulfills all of life’s core values. If I may state it this way, His “Loyalty Club” provides earthly and eternal benefits! The Lord simply calls us to trust Him to provide those things that we need and to hunger for righteousness (Matthew 5:3), apply our strength and minds to follow Him (Deuteronomy 6:5; Luke 10:27), and entrust our entire life to His plan (John 14:6).
"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me."
-Revelation 3:20
Larry C. Ashlock
Notes:
1. "Somebody's Watching Me," by Rockwell, 1984.
2. In one instance, a local church pastor accused a neighboring megachurch of “sheep stealing” because the larger congregation was targeting the members of the smaller body of believers with advertisements for their bigger church.
3. Cf. Griswald v. Connecticut (1965). The Supreme Court recognized that specific guarantees in the Constitution create “zones” that establish a right to privacy. For example, see the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Cf. Beauchamp, Tom L.; Childress, James F., Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th edition, Kindle Edition. See also Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis, "The Right to Privacy," Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193-220.
4. Examples include: 1) informational; 2) physical (focus on being undisturbed); 3) decisional (freedom from interference when making certain decisions; e.g. Roe v. Wade); 4) proprietary (highlights property interests in the human person; e.g. stored tissue samples); and 5) relational (family or other intimate relations within which individuals in conjunction with others make decisions).
5. Willard, Dallas. Renovation of the Heart: Putting on the Character of Christ with Bonus Content (Designed for Influence), Kindle Edition.
6. Ibid.
1. "Somebody's Watching Me," by Rockwell, 1984.
2. In one instance, a local church pastor accused a neighboring megachurch of “sheep stealing” because the larger congregation was targeting the members of the smaller body of believers with advertisements for their bigger church.
3. Cf. Griswald v. Connecticut (1965). The Supreme Court recognized that specific guarantees in the Constitution create “zones” that establish a right to privacy. For example, see the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Cf. Beauchamp, Tom L.; Childress, James F., Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th edition, Kindle Edition. See also Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis, "The Right to Privacy," Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193-220.
4. Examples include: 1) informational; 2) physical (focus on being undisturbed); 3) decisional (freedom from interference when making certain decisions; e.g. Roe v. Wade); 4) proprietary (highlights property interests in the human person; e.g. stored tissue samples); and 5) relational (family or other intimate relations within which individuals in conjunction with others make decisions).
5. Willard, Dallas. Renovation of the Heart: Putting on the Character of Christ with Bonus Content (Designed for Influence), Kindle Edition.
6. Ibid.
Posted in Pathway Perspectives