Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Myth of the "Transparent Society"

Posted by kdawson on from the you-first dept.

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."

6 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. I don't get it... by Otter · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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...
  2. It has been stated. . . by Apple+Acolyte · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:It has been stated. . . by TheLazySci-FiAuthor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You use the words 'worth' 'secret' and 'value' in your statement, and I find that very thought-provoking.

      I would argue that what you speak of is value created from an artificial scarcity - and scarcity of resources has probably been the primary driving force behind most wars and conquests and their subsequent atrocities.

      As an example, let us say that I have knowledge on how to build a stable, robust operating system which far exceeds the capabilities of the current ones. It would be said that the value of that knowledge is great, but until it is somehow made known, it is indeed worthless. Now if I build and distribute the OS, but do not allow the knowledge of how it was done, then certainly the worth of that knowledge becomes greater.

      What happens if I allow the knowledge of how to build this OS out into the wild? Does it become worthless? Did I completely destroy its value by removing the barrier of privacy to this knowledge?

      For a truly egalitarian society to exist there must be complete disclosure of all knowledge to all. When all knowledge is made freely available for all there should be no need for privacy.

      Of course, we have a societal problem right now where we have been raised to think only certain actions are 'the norm' and thus things we do which are in fact harmless, or even geniunely helpful, can be viewed in the eyes of society as wrong. This is where the need of privacy exists, I understand.

      All knowledge wants to be free, and a secret is nothing but knowledge held captive. Thus, privacy is in fact artificial.

      --
      Read my Very Short "Stories"
  3. Details contradict the conclusion by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  4. Re:Watching your employees by noidentity · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We should be able to to see what our police are doing and what our congesspeople are doing. Why? Because they work for us. But once you grant that assertion, it follows that your employer should be able to watch you.

    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.

  5. Sunlight is the best disinfectant by jjh37997 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "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.