There is a struggle going on all over the world between privacy and transparency. That is, everyone wants privacy for themselves, and transparency for everyone else, very human, and patently ridiculous. It’s like wanting to have your cake and eat it, too. However, the issue is a hot one in the media and the press corps.

I’m not sure there is any such thing as privacy, anyway. Just because there is a word, doesn’t necessarily mean that such a thing actually exists, although we always hope there is some solid relationship between words and reality. Still, I suppose that having words for things that don’t exist is more comforting than having things for which there are no words.

We the people will sleep more soundly if we feel we know pretty much what the various departments and administrations in our government are up to, and how the large corporations are handling our investments and interest, but this is what accountants, lawyers and the press are for. What my neighbor does behind closed doors is probably none of my business, and I think I don’t really want to know, anyhow.

I asked my wife what was her take on privacy, and she said that privacy means being left alone and not having to answer questions while preparing the evening meal.

They say there are languages, which have never had a traditional word for “privacy.” Well then, if some folks get along fine without the word, and therefore, without the concept of privacy, perhaps there isn’t any such thing after all.

If there is such a thing, I call it “transprivacy.” That’s the situation in which nobody can see your stuff, but you can see theirs. Sounds good, but it won’t work. Isn’t possible.

And the struggle between privacy and transparency goes on.

Orrin Frink is a resident of Kennebunkport. He can be reached at ofrink@gmail.com.

Comments are not available on this story.