What is Judge Posner's argument regarding privacy? Explain the three parts to his argument.

What will be an ideal response?

Judge Posner believes that there is no fundamental right to privacy and that people are interested in privacy only because they want to conceal their own wrongdoing or prevent embarrassment. He believes that people conceal the truths about them in order to appear healthier, smarter, and more honest than they actually are.

According to a video interview, he says that "because [privacy] has [...] instrumental value, you want to control information about yourself; that will enable you to make advantageous transactions personally, professionally, and commercially with other people."

Posner argues that, in the future, modern notions of privacy will be obsolete. He argument has three parts:

Pre-modern peoples (living in small villages or tribal cultures) had no real ability to conceal anything about themselves, and therefore no privacy. It is perfectly natural for people to live with little or no privacy.

Contemporary people are willing to give up their private information, and become transparent, in return for very small financial incentives or improvements in convenience. This proves that we do not value individual privacy.

Concealment is most useful to criminals, and least useful to honest people. Therefore privacy is mostly a social harm that reduces safety, not a social good.