Privacy and the Parable Code

just4kidsmagazine.com

Theologians often use a common explanation to explain why Jesus taught in parables.  Using some of his very own words they suggest that parables allowed him to speak in a way that his disciples would understand his true meaning while at the same time allow those who were either not converted or even enemies to believe that he was talking about something else.  This Parable Code allowed Jesus to discuss radical changes in rules, belief systems and religious practice while avoiding prosecution from the established leadership.

Codes have been use throughout time.  Generally a code is used to protect secret information.  Unless you are really just advertising Ovaltine, it is seldom worth the effort to establish a code and create a cypher.  But a sufficiently important secret may create the need for a code.  This understanding shows that secrecy is one critical element in the demands for privacy.  Most non-dictators assert the right to privacy.  In reality dictators also assert this right but usually limit it for themselves and their advisors.

This right to privacy is debated in many societal niches.  Does a child, especially a teen, have a right to privacy in her own room?  If so is this right universal or do exceptions exist?  Does a spouse have a right to privacy from his partner?  If so, does that right include keeping secret, information that would harm the marriage?  Does one nation have the right to keep secret its military development from other nations?  Does that right extend to her allies?  The questions are without number just as the responses would be.

Often the right-to-privacy debate becomes a creature of interpretation and is often reduced to an analysis of semantics. Throwing caution to the wind I enter that world with just a few thoughts and I only assert one universal suggestion.

Whenever I consider a right to anything I strive to determine the responsibilities that correspond to that right.

In days of yore items that were to be kept secret were strictly guarded. Kings and royals developed individual seals so that their correspondence could be specifically identified.  Often they sent pre-arranged false messages to test whether the channels of communication were secure. Only upon satisfaction of the protection within the flow of information would they send battle plans or other developments in the kingdom's interest.

Today we will send gigabits of information across the internet.  Even though we know that these channels are not secure and are accessible we use these means because of their convenience.  Yet we demand the right to privacy.  The expectation that something, that by definition is insecure, should be secure because the information we sent was private and secret, in the name of the right to privacy, is folly at best and arrogant at worst.

Whenever we assert a right we should be willing to comply with the corresponding responsibilities.  Our failure to do so incorporates inherent hypocrisy. Perhaps that which we want secret we should treat as private.