Sorry to slashdotters for my klutziness with the interface. I hope you were able to see my response to this threa, and Bruce Schneier's article about my book.
It is an important topic. I hope you are all part of the solution. Stay knowing and smart.
With cordial regards,
David Brin
http://www.davidbrin.com/
Hello all. David Brin checking in. Author of The Transparent Society and the target of Bruce Schneier's article. I have (naturally) a few quibbles and downright snorts at things that my friend Bruce said -- and blitheringly misunderstood -- in his piece. I am submitting a response to WIRED. It will eventually run at: http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/.. . . .
A few quick responses.
. . . .
First to "Inevitability" who said: "If you haven't read (Brin's) 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...".. . . .
Well, um, neither do I. In fact, "Inevitability", you are wrong and clearly never read The Transparent Society. The book contains a long chapter about how important privacy is to human beings and necessary! Though freedom must come first... . . .
My point is that freedom, and thus privacy, cannot be defended by people who are disempowered... or who have handed all protection duties over to some secretive elite. The enlightenment is an experiment in empowering citizens to make their own minds about market and political matters and to thus argue them openly. But in order for this to happen, most of the people need to know most of what's going on, most of the time.
. . . .
That still leaves room for some privacy... yes, it will be more narrowly defined in a transparent society. But in an open society, we will better be able to defend what's left.
. . . .
Supersnail makes a key point. The parts of the Patriot Act we should be fighting are not those parts letting the government see better. What, you plan to blind the mighty? When did THAT ever happen? HOW do you think you'll blind the mighty?
. . . .
No, the parts of Patriot we should be battling against are where our "protectors" get to do it all in secret, unsupervised. I am not harmed by what the NSA knows, but I could be harmed bigtime by anything they might DO to me... and preventing that means supervision. It means "sousveillance" (look it up!)
. . . .
See http://www.davidbrin.com/suggestions.html where I discuss the "Inspector General of the United States" and other means of stripping the veils.
. . . .
Geoff Landis (hi Geoff!) gets it. Watch for my response to Schneier (either on WIred or my blog). Poor Bruce veers and reverses and ultimately shows us an example of transparency evening the odds! Already police are much more careful, since the Rodney King episode. We can keep this trend going, WHILE not impeding the good cops from doing their jobs.
. . . .
Nine-times, the People CAN be organized! That's what NGOs are for. Join the EFF or ACLU and your dues help watch the cops. Have clear evidence you were abused? Any tort attorney will gladly help you "get organized." We need more equalizers, but the precedent is there. and some exist.
. . . .
redelm, privacy is dear and needed, but it is a secondary right, after freedom to know and speak. Without those, all other freedoms are useless. That is why freedom to know and speak are fiercely spelled out in the US Constitution.
. . . .
Shieldwolf get that a transparent society will demand that at least a critical mass of citizens... maybe a third be truly mature and active and connected with events and technological change. In contrast, node3 is blind. We can all participate without becoming a lynch mob. on 9/11, citizens did a myriad great things, on the day when the Professionals all Failed.
. . . .
BTW Marx was a great science fiction author and changed the world by scaring the West into reforming. (He'd hate that characterization.) But Hegel was simply a monster.
All the time I can afford. If you folks want to see
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry to slashdotters for my klutziness with the interface. I hope you were able to see my response to this threa, and Bruce Schneier's article about my book. It is an important topic. I hope you are all part of the solution. Stay knowing and smart. With cordial regards, David Brin http://www.davidbrin.com/
Hello all. David Brin checking in. Author of The Transparent Society and the target of Bruce Schneier's article. I have (naturally) a few quibbles and downright snorts at things that my friend Bruce said -- and blitheringly misunderstood -- in his piece. I am submitting a response to WIRED. It will eventually run at: http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/ .. . . .
A few quick responses.
. . . .
First to "Inevitability" who said: "If you haven't read (Brin's) 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..." .. . . .
Well, um, neither do I. In fact, "Inevitability", you are wrong and clearly never read The Transparent Society. The book contains a long chapter about how important privacy is to human beings and necessary! Though freedom must come first. .. . . .
My point is that freedom, and thus privacy, cannot be defended by people who are disempowered... or who have handed all protection duties over to some secretive elite. The enlightenment is an experiment in empowering citizens to make their own minds about market and political matters and to thus argue them openly. But in order for this to happen, most of the people need to know most of what's going on, most of the time.
. . . .
That still leaves room for some privacy... yes, it will be more narrowly defined in a transparent society. But in an open society, we will better be able to defend what's left.
. . . .
Supersnail makes a key point. The parts of the Patriot Act we should be fighting are not those parts letting the government see better. What, you plan to blind the mighty? When did THAT ever happen? HOW do you think you'll blind the mighty?
. . . .
No, the parts of Patriot we should be battling against are where our "protectors" get to do it all in secret, unsupervised. I am not harmed by what the NSA knows, but I could be harmed bigtime by anything they might DO to me... and preventing that means supervision. It means "sousveillance" (look it up!)
. . . .
See http://www.davidbrin.com/suggestions.html where I discuss the "Inspector General of the United States" and other means of stripping the veils.
. . . .
Geoff Landis (hi Geoff!) gets it. Watch for my response to Schneier (either on WIred or my blog). Poor Bruce veers and reverses and ultimately shows us an example of transparency evening the odds! Already police are much more careful, since the Rodney King episode. We can keep this trend going, WHILE not impeding the good cops from doing their jobs.
. . . .
Nine-times, the People CAN be organized! That's what NGOs are for. Join the EFF or ACLU and your dues help watch the cops. Have clear evidence you were abused? Any tort attorney will gladly help you "get organized." We need more equalizers, but the precedent is there. and some exist.
. . . .
redelm, privacy is dear and needed, but it is a secondary right, after freedom to know and speak. Without those, all other freedoms are useless. That is why freedom to know and speak are fiercely spelled out in the US Constitution.
. . . .
Shieldwolf get that a transparent society will demand that at least a critical mass of citizens... maybe a third be truly mature and active and connected with events and technological change. In contrast, node3 is blind. We can all participate without becoming a lynch mob. on 9/11, citizens did a myriad great things, on the day when the Professionals all Failed.
. . . .
BTW Marx was a great science fiction author and changed the world by scaring the West into reforming. (He'd hate that characterization.) But Hegel was simply a monster.
All the time I can afford. If you folks want to see