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."
We should be able to to see what our police are doing and what our congesspeople are doing. Why? Because they work for us. ( If someone from a foreign country claimed the same privelege, we would not take them seriously, right? )
But once you grant that assertion, it follows - for all slashdot readers who are not self-employed - that your employer should be able to watch you.
I'm not advocating either side here, just pointing out the logical consequences of the position that we should be able to watch them.
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...
Only internal incompetance and lack of interest currently stops your government knowing everything about you!
If we are to have a "transarent" society then the citizen should be able to "see" everything that thier government does. Currently in the US not even congree can see what the executive is doing.
The 60s civil rights movement has triumphed, we have equality -- everybody is downtrodden.
Old COBOL programmers never die. They just code in C.
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
But eventually, the Transparent Society would be replaced by the TMI Society, and the goggles will still do nothing.
Humans also need dignity. They need to be able to make mistakes. They need to be able to make suppositions about ideas without being judged in order to challenge ideas they do not agree with due to free will, and while this may not be illegal, it may challenge the laws and ideals of society themselves. If someone were to snuff out those who challenge society then it may flourish or fester by people who won't think outside the box (something also valued in business these days). Many times in history we've faced the alteration of convention, but without privacy, convention is re-enforced by group mentality.
I don't understand why police interviews are not typically recorded. In the UK most interviews have been recorded for a long time -- probably 20 years.
After all..... if the police have nothing to hide, why should they object to interviews being recorded and the defendant getting a copy of the tape?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
The guy who wrote that article is an idiot. He talks about the "transparent society" without considering that other things in society are going to have to change alongside.
If you're going to have a transparent society, and you don't want to be powerless, you need to bloody participate. You need to break down the ultra-specialization that has become so commonplace in modern society, educate yourself about the various sectors that sustain your life and your society, and participate in each of them actively.
The example given was of cops. Well, in a transparent society, you don't want cops, because everyone is a cop. If you see someone doing something, and you know they shouldn't be doing it, you rally the people around and take action personally.
Another example, government. Government isn't supposed to "serve" the people, it is supposed to "be" the people. The matters that government are concerned with should be the very first things that are made transparent, not the inside of your refrigerator.
If all you want to do is sit around in blissful ignorance while the government runs your life, then a transparent society isn't going to make you particularly happy.
If you actually want to be an active participant in your society and work at making it better, transparency is necessary to get started.
This guy clearly doesn't want the responsibility that the loss of ignorance brings with it, but personally, I'll be fucked if I'm going to remain quietly ignorant so people like him can remain blissfully happy.
Those sorts of people are MEANT to be powerless.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
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
In the case where the cop asks for your name, knowing your name gives no power in itself - you might have given a false name. it's only when that information can be used that the power is given/lost. When the cop does the PNC lookup, that is when they get power. Likewise, if you ask the cop their name, you have no means to use that information and therefore no power.
Even if you could record the police (which in the UK, you can't) you still have to have a means to use that recording for it to have power. Unless there's a heinous action on it, the media won't be interested. You can put it on youtube - but really, who cares?
Oh, and while we're on the subject. Society != Government.
Society is me, my partner, the people in my road, the queue in Sainsbury's. Govenerment is a group of dehumanised institutions - the two cannot be compared
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
If you haven't read the book, basically the argument that Brin makes is that the complete loss of privacy is inevitable given technology, and thus we shouldn't delude ourselves in thinking we can preserve it, but rather embrace it and fight for transparency on both sides. I don't buy the inevitability argument, and whether he is right or not, the best course of action to preserve balance of power is the same - to fight to preserve privacy on our part, and to increase transparency in the government.
However, there are some more interesting arguments in the book. For example consider CCTV systems. Assuming that their installation is inevitable, he argues that we should fight to make the feeds were available to everyone not just the government. This would empower us to watch the government as much as government is watching us. However, the biggest opposition to this would not be from the government, but from citizens themselves who trust the authorities to watch them, but not their neighbors. This was the attitude he was trying to counter in his book.
In my latest journal (don't bother reading it, it's a sucky one. The eclipse one was much better) I mention that my friend Linda spent sixty days in Dwight Correctional Center, a hellhole maximum security state prison here in Illinois for simple drug posession, while a former drinking buddy broke into a man's home and tried to kill him with a butcher knife (Lance claims he didn't actually try to kill the guy) and got fifteen days in the Sangamon County Jail.
When they pass respectable laws I'll respect the law.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Schneier addresses the central fallacy of the "transparent society" idea promoted by David Brin
Brin doesn't suggest that the transparent society is a good thing; he suggests that it's inevitable so we should figure out which kind is the least offensive and make sure that's the one that happens.
Schneier demonstrates why the transparent society is undesirable, but this is not counter to Brin's claim. Schneier fails to offer argument which counters Brin's view of inevitability.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Privacy is one of the most fundamental things about being human. If privacy is to become null, the very definition of being human is going to have to change.
A transparent society where industry and government can spy and know all information about the citizens and consumers would allow government and industry to crush any opposition to the criminal enterprise or status quo.
It is our collective ignorance and current system design that creates an environment conducive to the production of criminals and extremists.
Criminals and extremists create huge profit centers for business.
Fear may be the biggest generator of income creating fictional needs and an artificial economy.
If someone one can create fear in your mind and then provide some solution to eliminate that fear, then they have a sale.
"an infinite player that has lost his finite mind" ~Infinite Play the Movie (it blends with reality)
"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.
But once you grant that assertion, it follows - for all slashdot readers who are not self-employed - that your employer should be able to watch you.
Yes. My employer has purchased a chunk of my time and effort. He should be able to see what I am doing during that time. Inasmuch as I am using his equipment, he should also be able to know what I am doing with that equipment. He should be able to know what project I am working on, what strategy I am taking, what the progress status is, and so on.
If I am in his office, he should be able to physically see me. I should not expect to be able to work in a closet with the door closed and make my boss knock before he comes in. It is perfectly acceptable for me to keep my door open and let people (particularly my employer) walk right in at any moment.
Once I go home, and am off the clock, that is a completely different story. My employer should have zero visibility to what I do on my own time, with my own resources. That is none of his business.
What is the problem here?
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.
For those of you unfamiliar with Brin's notion of the "Transparent Society," the first chapter of his book is available for free online, and there's of course the Wikipedia page.
Personally, I think Bruce Schneier is sort of missing the point; if anything he seems to be advocating the same sort of system as Brin. Brin's general thesis is that with ever-increasing technological capabilities, with cameras becoming ever-smaller and cheaper and networks increasingly ubiquitous, this loss of privacy is sadly inevitable. Given the choice of surveillance being solely the domain of government, or the domain of both the people and the government, the latter is preferable, and also has some interesting side-benefits. Balancing power between people and the government is one of the major benefits.
Brin wants a level playing field, but Schneider's arguing that we should slope the field heavily away from the government. If they have all the guns, we should at least have a monopoly on the data to preserve the balance of power.
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.
Someday, at such time as your karma has reached the heretofore unattainable echelon of "godlike" with its +6 automatic bonus, you'll post a cleverly disguised link to "8tubgirls2cups." And then we'll all be sorry.
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
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
Any practical society must be designed with the majority in mind not the vocal minority. Communism would work too, if everyone did what's good for a communist society. We need not pass laws forcing people to participate. We only need laws that reward them for participating. That is - as noted - one of the reasons communism has failed: it requires that people be enlightened and altruistic, both knowing what is best for their society and being willing to do it even at cost to themselves. When people are selfish, the whole thing collapses.
A properly constructed society would channel the efforts of the selfish toward doing the benefit of all, so when the selfish person acts, everyone benefits despite his intentions. That is one of the great benefits of capitalism, as Adam Smith said: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
When people participate in civic life, as shieldwolf advocates, they can personally benefit if there is private property. If I prevent a robbery for example, and thus decrease crime in my neighborhood, I indirectly help everyone. But if I am selfish, I'll only do it if I can protect my own property or raise my own property values in the process.
Private property gives the selfish an incentive to do things that are good for the community.
You answer an example in a hypothetical world with a counter-example in the real world, therby implicitly ignoring the hypothesis.
Please consider the hypothesis at hand: that in a transparent society all actions are visible. Would mobs still act the same if each member knew that he could be individually held accountable?
The more you fear,
The more you hide,
The more you lie. --Yes, "Let Go"
We need privacy because we are afraid. We are afraid of what people will think of us/do to us if they know our innermost secrets. We are afraid people will take what we have if they know how to access it. We are afraid that we will lose the respect and love of our friends and family if they know the things that we do/believe/have done that they don't approve of. And therefore, we have passwords on our accounts, we have secret combinations on the locks we use to secure our belongings, and we tell lies about who we are and what we believe.
If we could totally and completely trust the people around us, we would have no need of privacy. But we don't trust everyone, and therefore we hide things.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Yes, I think so. Living in a transparent society has nothing to do with living in a society where everybody acts rational. If you are in a mob, you are pretty sure you are acting right, even though you still act irrational.
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
And in the UK this was codified by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in 1984 which was a reaction to some pretty extreme cases of police abuse and malpractice in the 1970s. Like, police knowingly covering up evidence which proved that people in prison with life sentences were innocent. So it's a good thing that now interviews and taped (audio & video) and available to both sides but it only came about through a rare moment of political clarity.
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
While that may seem to be a logical continuation of this line of reasoning, the problem is that you're thinking there are only two levels - companies and employees. There's a third level - citizens. Society is ultimately "the boss" over companies that exist within that society. Sot it goes citizens > companies > employees. We can pass labor laws, including limitations on working hours, maternity leave, and even employee monitoring. It boils down to the citizenry deciding for itself what kind of society they want to live in.
Much like the logic goes "if the employee doesn't agree, they can quit the job", the logic also says "if the employer doesn't agree, they can leave the country."
Well, I think it is fairly certain that Bruce Schneier is smarter than most of the people here, probably including you and certainly including me.
I'll grant that that doesn't preclude him being an idiot as well, but not in this case. It is wise to be a bit skeptical about the possibility of putting a utopian scheme like a transparent society into effect. It's all very well to say that we give up our privacy and the people with power give up their power, but they can verify that we're giving up our privacy a lot more easily than we can verify they're giving up their power -- at least until its too late.
It's the Achilles' heel of most utopian schemes; even if you can imagine them working, it's hard to believe the transition from the status quo could take place without the whole thing running off the rails.
In any case, anybody who's seriously talking about a transparent society outside the context of a philosophical thought experiment is either a fool or a liar, often a bit of both. When the idea we can get along without privacy comes out of the mouth of business or political leaders, it's never followed by a shout of "and I'll be the first!" In fact, it tends to be defending some loss of privacy by somebody else that particularly benefits them is in reality good for everybody.
Right.
I think you've grasped the essential point: privacy is tied up with power. We can imagine a transparent society, and I think if it were not a dystopia, it must necessarily be a radically egalitarian one. However, there are a number of significant dystopic scenarios to be considered in a transparent society, such as the tyranny of a majority over a minority. One might argue that these scenarios are in fact impossible, but it's a purely theoretical argument. I believe I'll remain skeptical of any plans to put such a utopia into effect for now.
However, our society is based on restraining the powerful -- at least the politically powerful. More transparency, I do not doubt, would be better when applied to the workings of power.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
They act very public, every member of a mob feels proud to be a member,
Actually, they don't. This was just about universally assumed to be the case, and most police courses still teach this idea, but a number of recent studies (1990's and up) have shown that only about 25% of a given mob really want to be there. Larger percentages try to move towards the fringes and hang back, but are afraid that if they make a sudden break, the mob will turn on them. If the small percent that organize a mob make good choices in direction and pick up new people on the leading edge fast enough, the mob tends to hang together, whereas if it stays in one place, or avoids routes that let it pick up lots of new members, it dissipates.
Mob organizers can make people more afraid of leaving by appointing assistants to watch the edges and challenge hangers-back, or by announcing sudden changes of plan so that people caught up are more afraid to risk leaving, but these techniques may backfire. Most, probably all, mobs have an organizational core member set which has mastered at least some techniques to keep the mob going, has a plan to trigger a mob event before hand, and is willing to manipulate people in an at least semi-skilled fashion.
I'll be happy to provide some links on this if needed, but if you doubt it, try watching some mob video footage that captures the mob still en route to the location where it begins to destroy property or clash with the police, and see how easy it is to spot people herding stragglers, encouraging the reluctant and organizing the overall behavior. Also, count the numbers of these who are equipped with gear, such as handkerchiefs tied over their faces, disguising masks, or even gas masks, and figure these people came prepared to form a mob in advance.
Who is John Cabal?