Philosophy of Privacy — Vector Privacy Interview with Hans Koning

Hans Koning is a privacy advocate, researcher, and decentralization enthusiast with a background in blockchain governance. He has been involved with community-driven projects and DAOs including DigiByte, PIVX, and MetaBrands. Hans ascribes to the philosophies of a “solarpunk”, someone who sees technology as a positive force for collective good, though he admits this outlook sometimes borders on idealism.

Connect with Hans Koning > @f40w…2mzs or Follow on X

Let’s jump right in…

You’ve spent years researching governance in decentralized systems. In your view, what is the most dangerous misconception people have about privacy in the digital age?

“I fear that we as a society see privacy as a magic wand we can just wave around and then exercise privacy whenever and wherever we want. Privacy to me is a binary phenomenon. You either have it or you don’t. We often approach things in a carefree and relaxed manner, until we come to a point we feel we need to intervene. The war on terror for instance is a good example that demonstrates where we as a society showed a causal relationship with privacy all for the greater good. If you are one of us, you have nothing to hide….

That in itself may be true, but that doesn’t mean it is acceptable. The old adage, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, is an adage for a reason. So, for me the most dangerous misconception is that someone is looking after privacy for us. No, there is not. This was already flagged in 1993 by Eric Hughes in the Cypherpunk’s Manifesto. He stated that privacy is not something that is granted by governments or corporations, but individuals must build their own systems in order to protect it, as privacy is a fundamental necessity for an open society in the digital world we live in. Could not have said it better.“

Censorship is often framed as a tool to protect people from harmful content. Where do you draw the line between legitimate moderation and authoritarian censorship and who should get to draw that line?

“Freedom of expression is very much linked to censorship. Actually, in my view there cannot be freedom of expression if there is censorship. So, although we tend to focus on freedom of expression, censorship is often overlooked. Yet it is more important, a conditio sine qua non, an absolute necessity really, so I am really happy with this question.

When it comes to drawing lines, by default things become arbitrary. What is an acceptable speed on a highway? Ask 10 people, get 10 different answers. So, let’s look at it from a more principled point of view. Is censorship acceptable? If so, when? That is the question really. For me personally it comes close to freedom of expression, and via that I can easier explain. The freedom of expression should be total. No matter how ridiculous, arbitrary or insulting things might be, you should have a right to say that. And you can only say something if you think, so banning freedom of expression equals banning free thought. The thought police? That’s a big no to me.

I do see a shadow side to this. Namely some people might use language as a weapon. Is that an acceptable reason to apply censorship? For many countries it is. In blockchain censorship resistance is an almost holy principle, but is also acknowledged as a potential divisive phenomenon. To mitigate that the fork option was invented, and by that people are given a choice, you listen to it, or ignore it. And that brings me back to the original question, is censorship legitimate? In the blockchain that is solved via letting the community choose, and that follows another crucial phenomenon namely “self-sovereignty” I can and I will make my own choices, and you do not need to do that for me.“

Privacy used to be the default, you had to choose to be public. Now it’s the reverse. How did we get here, and is it possible to shift the default back?

“The sarcastic observation would be when we started to see value in data, and let data become not only big business, but the exclusive business model. And that is a very successful model. You give away a service for free, and receive data in return. Fair exchange? Can be, but don’t think it always is. South Park captured that brilliantly in the Humancentipad episode. We click on just anything really, only to get access to something we feel is important. Hidden in plain view, we simply scroll down and click accept. Convenience and TLDR…

After the 2016 US presidential elections the Cambridge Analytica scandal revealed that data from Facebook users was used in order to influence elections. Although totally legal at the time, it did show that only a constituency of 24,000 voters was enough to swing the elections. That was only possible because all users (unknowingly) agreed to share their data.

How do we come back from that? That will ironically not be easy. As Eric Hughes pointed out, individuals need to build their own systems in order to protect their data and privacy. Vector anyone? The key to solving this in my view is awareness, education, and lowkey tech.“

Decentralization promises to remove gatekeepers, but critics argue it creates new power dynamics > whales, early adopters, protocol developers. Is truly equal governance possible, or is hierarchy inevitable?

“If I may make an observation, I would argue that decentralization removes third parties, not necessarily being gatekeepers. I know, this can be splitting hairs, and that is the least I want to do. However, there are decentralized blockchains that work with what you could call gatekeepers, for instance in the PoS ecosystem, where stakers can decide on issues concerning that blockchain.

That said, yes, disintermediation indeed creates a new power dynamic. A popular and often successful structure is called the DAO, the decentralized autonomous organization. DAOs have proven to be a workable alternative, although they are not without challenges. Alternatively there are foundation type structures, that can act as a guardian and representative.

If you simply look at bitcoin you can easily argue governance works. There have been code changes and upgrades, massive debates in the community, and that is all resolved, and the chain is still continuing. So yes, 1,000s of people who do not know each other, spread out all over the world, with all different skill sets have proven that governance can work.

Governance is more than a pet project to me—have been studying decentralized governance academically for a while now, and have done my own research into it. Although there is much to share on the topic, and I am sure I will do so at a later point in time. There are two key elements in decentralized governance, namely engagement and confidence. Engagement refers to people participating freely and openly, and contributing to the ecosystem. It ensures fairness in the system. Confidence refers to the reliability of the technology. Does the technology, and the code, only do what it is supposed to do? Aspects like trustless and open source underpin confidence.

Most importantly however is that engagement and confidence work in harmony, like a check and balances system. The technology needs to be updatable by the community, and the user needs to be able to blindly rely on the technology because it is checked by the community. I call this the decentralized governance loop.“

Many governments argue that encryption and private messaging are threats to public safety. How would you respond to a lawmaker who says, “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”?

“That old chestnut… Ha!

There are many arguments to use, but the core should be centered on the notion that this is not for the government to decide, but me and me alone.

Broadly speaking there are three main reasons we should embrace encryption, namely it protects human rights, it is simply not logical, and the potential of abuse of power. To start with the first: the right to privacy is clearly stated in many laws around the world that individuals may have an expectation of privacy. This manifests itself for instance in an illegal search of your house or car. Only with a warrant or a clear and imminent threat this is allowed. Messaging in your phone or computer falls in that same category. Related to this is the expectation that individuals may have in not being monitored.

Furthermore, there is the logic argument. Don’t think there is anyone who does not have something he or she prefers not to become public knowledge. That doesn’t have to be an illegal act. Why do we have doors in bathrooms, passwords on computers, and close the curtains when we are home? Edward Snowden once said “Arguing that you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.

Then there is the abuse argument. When a government has total access to all our information, it can easily use that against us by selectively applying new laws against it. This also applies to historical data. What is okay to say now, might be perceived differently 10 years from now. Can you imagine your own data is being weaponized against you?

In short the issue of privacy isn’t about secrecy, but about self-sovereignty.“

You’ve been involved with DAOs and community-driven projects. What has working with decentralized communities taught you about human nature, both the best and worst of it?

“Wow, that is a great question, and also one I need to answer carefully. Communities are like anything in life, diverse, very diverse. There is no cookie cutter image of a community. This is often related to the topic or idea behind the community, how long it’s been active, the predominant geography, financial relevance just to name a few. Just look at any crypto community.

Intrinsically I have a positive outlook on humanity. Combine that with technology, I see tech as an opportunity and a means to enhance our lives and improve us as a society, and do so collectively. That would make me a solarpunk, a badge I’m proud to wear. That can be and sometimes is perilously close to being naive, perhaps better said an idiot. Still, that is how I see things: hope for the best, but don’t be gutted if it is the worst.

In the diverse communities and sub-communities, I’ve been involved in I saw a wide representation of humans and their respective behaviors. From amazing, creative, stimulating, contributing people on one end of the spectrum, to idiots, selfish backstabbing bastards, liars, and cheats on the other, and of course anything in between.

What that has taught me is that a decentralized community is just like in any city really, and funny enough, both are manageable and livable. So, for me ultimately a positive conclusion.“

Vector Privacy is built on the principle that private communication is a human right, not a feature. How important is messaging privacy specifically, compared to financial privacy or data privacy?

“You can indeed distinguish between all sorts of privacy, related to finance, political, work, social or private life just to name a few. At first glance, you could think they all require different levels of privacy. But do they?

Let’s start with what privacy is. A broad and commonly used description is that it is the phenomenon where an individual sets and manages boundaries as to what data to share. The what where when and how of data so to say.

Now, applying that to financial or data privacy, I think there is a massive disconnect between perceived and actual achieved privacy for the simple reason my financial information and my personal data is not always in my hands, and therefore by default not private. My information is collected, aggregated and internally distributed and shared when/where needed by say a bank or government. That is a far cry from what we earlier thought privacy should be.

That also means they do act based on the privacy by principle, but more on the breach by principle.“

Historically, privacy tools have been used by dissidents, journalists, and activists in authoritarian regimes. Do you think people in democratic countries underestimate how quickly their own freedoms can erode?

“That is a very accurate observation. I believe this also fuels the notion or, better said, the expectation that if you have nothing to hide you can share it. Although using it for the very right reasons, by that sheer fact privacy tools also became covered in secrecy.

But, coming back to the question. Honestly, I think we as a society are gullible and naive when it comes to privacy. Often the things you take for granted tend to erode over time, with privacy definitely being one of them. Think a good example is how people perceive George Orwell’s novel 1984 today. It is now more seen as anecdotal rather than the cautionary tale it was and should be.

And as a final comment… yes, I take the bait, do we actually live in a democracy? Is going to the polls every few years the best we can do? Asking ourselves and debating among ourselves these very questions is precisely what we should do in order to preserve what we feel is precious. But do we really, or have we lost that appetite? Similar to my comment on 1984, I do see a lesser degree of public debate and discourse now than in the 1980s.“

The concept of “self-sovereignty”, owning your own identity, data, and keys is central to the decentralization movement. But most people don’t even use a password manager. How do we bridge that gap between idealism and usability?

“Most people if not all would agree with the notion of self-sovereignty. But unfortunately most people would also see themselves as self-sovereign. That is the actual problem in my view, namely most people would not see the problem we try to address and resolve. Have to “give credit” to the tech industry for letting us perceive it like that. Not an easy feat, but most likely became a mantra that stuck in people’s mind via repetition and in a way coordination by the industry as a whole.

As to the solution, think I made a reference to that in an earlier question (#3), namely awareness, education and lowkey tech are crucial to getting people to understand the challenge and call them to action. Coming to that realization often happens when it is too late unfortunately. So, that means there’s work to be done. A lot!!

Good thing the Vector team is not walking away from a challenge.“

Social media platforms have become the new public square, but they’re owned by corporations with profit motives. What does a truly free, uncensorable public square look like and is it even desirable?

“A social media platform can only exist when two things occur, namely content and userbase. And both need to be present in big numbers. Without any of those, it is simply a data depository. The big tech has optimized that numbers game, and has been able to monetize that perfectly. And although we all know we are being used, consumer data is leaked, we threat with walking away, but ultimately we hardly do.

That is also the challenge an uncensorable public square would face: getting the numbers. That is an insurmountable hurdle at the moment. I really wish it were other ways, but that is naive.

How such a public square should look like? Well, think it is important a sense of belonging is offered, and a reason to be there (over and over again). In that sense Facebook’s Farmville was absolutely brilliant. Additionally, would expect it is important to stay away from walking the moral high ground. The “like to smell my own fart” approach will be ultimately detrimental. Simply relying on the principle is not going to cut it.

Good thing is, we don’t need to address and solve all problems now and at the same time. One step at the time. The technology and the community need to be seen as ephemeral, that would be my main guiding principle in developing an uncensorable public square.“

You’ve worked across DigiByte, PIVX, and MetaBrands — all community-driven projects and DAOs. What’s the single biggest lesson you’ve learned about sustaining a decentralized community long-term?

“The short and ironic answer is that trying to do something for the “greater good” is the hardest thing to do. Decentralization is easy to explain, but hard to see in a relevant context: the why? What is the use and point of decentralization? Or perhaps most bluntly put: what is in it for me?

The harsh answer is nothing. There is really nothing in decentralization for you directly, but… there is everything in it for us as a society, and by that so much to gain for you personally. I appreciate that this is not easy to understand.

This is partial because we do live in the era of “look at me”. On average people spent 4 hours a day looking at other people who posted stuff, putting a focus on individualization rather than communal. Additionally, we tend to be set in our ways, and are not necessarily open to new ideas, thoughts or developments. That makes it relatively easy to work with a kindred spirit type of community as with DigiByte and PIVX. Outside of that, it is often hard. Think there are a few reasons for that. First of all, I still think blockchain, crypto, technology is still too complicated. A significant number of people, sometimes me included, is just happy it does what it is supposed to do, and not think critically about it. That is something we see throughout our daily lives. Does anyone really understand how tap and go payments work and what by using it you really do? We simply opt for convenience. Secondly, and connected to the first point, there is also a belief that we cannot impact or influence technology, and just take what is there. I would like to see more a “pull” effect in tech innovation than the current “push” model. We underestimate our, as users, importance and relevance.

So for me the two main factors you need to address in order to develop, grow and nurture a sustainable decentralized community is technology and engagement. We want to belong to something we can understand and contribute to.“

If you could send one message to someone who’s never thought about digital privacy before, someone who posts everything publicly and uses default settings on every app, what would you say to them?

“You always run the risk of sounding like a Karen if you point out something people do not want to hear. Of course arguments like leaving a digital footprint everywhere, compromising your own (online) safety, or allowing posts to impact you for instance via comments are all valid, but who am I to be judgmental? But, since you asked…

For me personally, the gratification I get when sharing something with someone I know, directly, and not via a platform, really has no substitute. It really is like the Visa priceless campaign, it is quality over quantity that sparks joy.“

Interview conducted by Sir Clodsworth III — Vector Privacy 2026