Slashdot Mirror
The Myth of the "Transparent Society"
palegray.net recommends a piece by Bruce Schneier up at Wired. Schneier addresses the central fallacy of the "transparent society" idea promoted by David Brin, and also takes on the flawed arguments that attempt to justify increased government monitoring of citizens. From the article: "If I disclose information to you, your power with respect to me increases. One way to address this power imbalance is for you to similarly disclose information to me. We both have less privacy, but the balance of power is maintained. But this mechanism fails utterly if you and I have different power levels to begin with."
That aside, who says the goal of privacy is to have power over people? If I hit you in the head with a brick and you hit me in the head with a rock, "the balance of power is maintained" but it seems like a suboptimal solution.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Those who have nothing worth keeping secret from the public possess very little that is of value in their lives.
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
The main problem here is that when you read the original article, the case Schneider gives contradict what he says. Brin argued that the people who have power can (and will) invade your privacy anyway. They already have the surveillance cameras. In the example Schneider gave, the kid with the portable MP-3 recorder was able to fight back purely because he did have his own recording (of what turned out to be useful to him to record)-- that's precisely what Brin had argued. It's precisely the opposite of what Schneider said: "The more power you have, the more additional power you derive from the new data." Without the "new data"-- the recording-- the kid had no power; the police had all the power.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
This is closer to a relationship between two corporations, one that's much larger than the other but requires the help of the smaller one. In theory, the American people are represented by the larger and more powerful corporation. The smaller one (the government) has no inherent power over the larger corporation, only the power that the larger corporation gives them. In this instance, the larger company would have to be deeply, deeply dumb not to require all the procedures of the smaller company while they're doing the work for the larger, since the larger has more to lose. Without proper oversight, the smaller will take as much power from the larger that they can.
In this analogy, it might even get to the point where the government takes so much power that the populace actually becomes weaker than the government. In that instance I'm fairly certain that Jefferson would suggest watering the tree of liberty.
No it doesn't. Public servants are different than employees in a company. Government workers are given powers that private companies don't have, so they demand greater scrutiny. Most people must work, but they can choose not to work for the government if they don't like being under greater scrutiny.
Is the idea of a solution that takes more than one sentence to describe THAT far beyond your grasp? We aren't speaking in absolutes here.
Would that apply to business and organizations and web sites? All of them collect information on us, so it is only fair that we see what they are doing as well.
Would Cowboy Neil like it if everyone could see what happens behind the scenes at Slashdot? Because he holds our personal info when we register with Slashdot.
At what point do we cite privacy? Does privacy even exist?
Keep in mind that the Clintons have access to our personal info, but refuse to release their tax records and campaign funding records. Are all politicians like that?
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant; electric light the best policeman."
"Fear grows in darkness; if you think there's a bogeyman around, turn on the light."
"The plant that grows in darkness and wilts in the light give forth bitter fruit."
Bruce seems to be missing the point. Technology is giving the common man power to snoop on the powerful and the only defense the powerful have is to hide behind privacy laws and other form of censorship. Imagine if everyone wore devices that recorded everything they saw or heard - police would never be able to abuse their power like the cop Perino tried to do with Crespo. That kids MP3 recording saved his ass - what if everyone used that tech everyday? Privacy would disappear but so would many of the abuses of power that Bruce seems so worried about.
Technology changes the balance of power..... giving it to the common man. Brin is advocating for people to give up privacy, he's saying that modern technology is making it so cheap and easy for people to record and share information that people are going to spy on each other all the time and maybe that's not such a bad thing. If we try to ban this tech then only the rich and powerful will be able to do the spying..... but if we keep it we gain a powerful weapon against the powerful.
Yet privacy is clearly a conditional right. You have to behave in order to enjoy it. Do bad things and you will lose it. Privacy cannot be a shield defending wrongdoing. That's the basis for police search warrants. The same or worse holds in the civil law sphere -- discovery and depositions are frightening things as some will find out.
With respect to governmental authorities, they operate with many legal privileges and immunities which shield punishment and so permit prejudice on their parts. Privacy becomes even more important in those relatively few (but serious) cases where offices are abused for personal gratification.
Wow clever. So when do we pass laws to enforce participation on those that don't give a damn now?
We do it at the same time that we're removing taxation laws. It's a re-implementation of the same thing, except you're not insulated from understanding of what's going on, and your contribution isn't abstracted to the point that it can be perverted to a purpose you wouldn't have willingly agreed to.
If you spend a dozen days a month actually working on and with the critical infrastructure that supports your life rather than paying taxes equal to a couple of days worth of work for some private party, you know your hard work isn't going to go up some politicians nose while food supplies dwindle, then see him get first crack at the food supply while people do without. You really don't see an improvement there?
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Marx/Hegel says that a limited economic resource creates opposing classes: the Haves versus the Have-nots. Survellience information may be one these dividing resources.
A counter theory says that although a new resouce may appear in one segment of society first (e.g. cellphone internet), demand pushes supply creation to satisfy society.
Mobs are like bell curves. You're going to have a few rational people and a few completely frenzied irrational people, but the center is going to end up going one way or the other. Will they listen to the emotional ravings of the irrational? Or will they remain calm and cool-headed? Given how emotions are far more contagious than reason, mobs are highly likely to bring the irrational average up.
But, like you said, the society is transparent, and the actions of each of the mob members is going to be known to everyone. Without police, you end up having to send another mob out to take care of the first one.
And mobs are like bell curves. You're going to have a few rational people and a few completely frenzied irrational people
Your example is earily similar to something that happened to my Mother a few months ago. She works the books for a local grocery store a few times a week along with one other person. One day, almost 10k goes missing.
It was only by watching the video for 8 straight hours that they were able to prove that it was the other person. If it wasn't for the tape my mom probably would have been fired and blacklisted (small town, news travels fast).
With a less corruptable form of democracy, in which you are able to vote on every issue, or just the ones that you feel competent to speak to.
To deal with the fact that every person cannot know everything, you should be able to assign your vote to any other individual whom you trust to do a good job, and have their vote carry the weight of yours.
So, you can vote for your mom, your mom can pass your vote and her vote to the town doctor, the town doctor can pass half the towns votes to a clever responsible guy he knows in the big city, and that guys opinion carries a lot of weight because a lot of people trust him.
You should be able to revoke your attribution at any time, instantly. Therefore, there is no possibility of corruption.
That is how I plan to organize society to operate without currency. By having it work on trust and leadership instead of systematic compulsion, ignorance and powerlessness.
Oh, and most animals, including humans, aren't particularly lazy. If they were, recreational pursuits would not exist. You've just spent too much time in the company of people who have been forced to work too much on things that have no importance, and your perspective has been skewed accordingly.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth