Meaning: This quote by Andrew Morton touches upon the concept of privacy and public access, and how those boundaries are often arbitrarily shifted by those in power. In this context, it could be interpreted as a commentary on the way individuals or institutions with authority can manipulate the definitions of privacy and public access to serve their own interests.

The idea of defining what is private and what is public is deeply rooted in the social, legal, and ethical frameworks of modern society. While privacy is generally considered to be the right of individuals to keep certain aspects of their lives and information protected from public scrutiny, public access refers to the availability of information, spaces, or resources to the general population.

However, the quote suggests that these definitions are not always fixed or consistent. Those in positions of power have the ability to alter the boundaries of privacy and public access to suit their needs, often without the consent or awareness of the individuals whose privacy is being infringed upon. This assertion raises important questions about the nature of privacy and public access in contemporary society.

The concept of privacy has become increasingly complex in the digital age, as technology has made it easier for personal information to be accessed, shared, and manipulated without the individual's knowledge or consent. The boundaries between what is considered private and what is considered public have become blurred, leading to concerns about the erosion of personal privacy and the potential for exploitation by those in positions of power.

Moreover, the quote also alludes to the idea that the manipulation of privacy and public access is not only a matter of individual privacy, but also extends to broader social and political contexts. Governments, corporations, and other influential entities have the capacity to redefine what is private and what is public in ways that can have far-reaching implications for society as a whole.

In the context of government surveillance, for example, the line between what is considered private and what is considered public has been increasingly blurred. The expansion of surveillance capabilities and the collection of vast amounts of personal data have raised concerns about the erosion of privacy rights and the potential for abuse of power by those in authority.

Similarly, in the realm of corporate data collection and online privacy, individuals often have little control over the ways in which their personal information is collected, used, and shared by powerful tech companies. The boundaries between private and public information are often manipulated to serve the interests of these entities, raising questions about the ethics of data collection and the protection of individual privacy rights.

In conclusion, the quote by Andrew Morton sheds light on the fluid and often arbitrary nature of privacy and public access, particularly in the context of power dynamics. It serves as a reminder of the importance of critically examining the ways in which privacy and public access are defined and manipulated by those in positions of authority, and the potential implications for individual rights and societal well-being.