Slashdot Log In
David Brin on Privacy
Posted by
michael
on Thu Feb 14, 2002 07:53 AM
from the no-webcams-in-the-white-house dept.
from the no-webcams-in-the-white-house dept.
David Brin is interviewed and provides some strong words on modern conceptions of privacy and why they're off-base. Brin asserts - and argues well - that a land with little privacy is a freer land.
Related Stories
[+]
Developers: David Brin Laments Absence of Programming For Kids 355 comments
An anonymous reader writes "David Brin is an award-winning science fiction writer who has often written on social issues such as privacy and creativity. Now, he's written an essay for Salon.com titled 'Why Johnny Can't Code'. He discusses his son's years-long effort to find a way to use his math book's BASIC programming examples. All they were ever able to find, however, were either children's versions (on the Mac) or 'advanced' versions which attempted to support modern programming requirements (and which required constant review of the user's manual). Ultimately, they ended-up buying an old Commodore 64 on Ebay — Yes, for those of you under the age of 30, 'personal' computers like the Apple II and C64 used to all include BASIC in their ROMs."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
A very basic fact... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A very basic fact... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apart from the fourth amendment, of course. Or what did you think "searches" means?
TWW
Parent
Re:A very basic fact... (Score:5, Interesting)
What we really need is a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to privacy; the only problem is the Constitution places limits on the power of government, not private individuals/corporations. So while it would be nice for it to be easier to prevent the government from spying on us, we still have the problem of corporations eager to figure out what breakfast cereals we prefer.
Parent
Re:A very basic fact... (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, what's wrong with that? Don't you want to buy cereal that you prefer to eat? If they don't know, you won't be able to buy it! What you're probably objecting to is their methodology, so everybody fill out the damn survey and send it in, ask your grocer to stock what you want, otherwise corporations will
Re:A very basic fact... (Score:3, Insightful)
Case in point - say you shop at store X all the time. The sales people (or whatever title they're using these days) know you by name, etc...
You get better service because they *know* you. It's like leaving decent tips at a restaurant. After a while you get excellent service because the waiters/waitresses *know* you're going to leave them a decent tip as long as they give you good service.
The Web isn't much different. If I do a lot of shopping on-line at a particular place then I'd expect if I call with a problem or a special order that I'd get some damn good service simply because of a history of patronage.
The issue is that *I* want to be able to control who has the information and who doesn't. And quite frankly, my favorite restaurant/jewelry store doesn't go around selling my contact information to every Tom, Dick and Harry that asks for it. Some of my favorite Web sites DO.
That, IMO, is the real issue. You have less control over who has your info in VR than in RL.
So yes - I would prefer to receive targetted marketing than what I get now, which is junk. And in order to do targetted marketing they need to have some sort of demographic information on you.
And maybe if Corp XYZ knew that millions of us actually liked product A or TV show B then we would't be so pissed off when the product is discontinued or the show is cancelled. If they don't know who's eating/watching/drinking something, they have no financial incentive to continue their offering
Re:A very basic fact... (Score:3, Informative)
As I have stressed to others in other threads, PLEASE do some research before deciding what rights you do or do not posses. How can you defend your rights if you don't even know what they are?
Re:A very basic fact... (Score:3, Insightful)
However, one might argue that most of our rights amount to one uber-Right To Be Free From Government Molestation In Our Personal Affairs. That amounts to about the same thing, IMO. If you were aware that gov't was monitoring (for reasons perhaps unknown) and/or recording (for reasons that could change from what you were originally told) what you spoke, where you went, who you talked to, etc, it may cause you to alter your activities. That's a restriction on those primary liberties.
Re:A very basic fact... (Score:2, Insightful)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This amendment has basicly been trampled, stomped, and disregarded. Too many people take the approach of 'if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about' and forget that this *IS* in the constitution.
Re:A very basic fact... (Score:3, Insightful)
Possibly because, given the technology of the time, a right to privacy made about as much sense as a right to breathe air; there was simply no need to state something so fundamental. After all, even in the most oppressive regimes, people still breathed. If you wanted to have a private conversation, just walk into the middle of a field with your friends and talk.
The fact that it does not is no reflection on the competence of the Founding Fathers, and the lack of it in the Constitution also does not mean that it should not exist.
A Bill of Rights written today, like this one [eu.int] does include a right to privacy. And who knows what such a Bill written 2302 will need to contain?
It's a Human Right (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's a Human Right (Score:3, Interesting)
(Boy, I can't wait to see the moderations on this one.)
Chris Beckenbach
Re:A very basic fact... (Score:2, Interesting)
Some states say you can only have sex in certain ways whether or not you are a consenting adult. I believe some states even outlaw homosexuality.
There are just too many really stupid and unenforceable laws out there for people to feel comfortable. For example: Why is it legal to pay someone to have sex on camera but illegal to pay someone to have sex with you unfilmed? Hmmm....
And the absurd war on drugs -- people would probably use less drugs if they were legal. The laws against drug use #1 assume that the citizens don't have the ability to use them intelligently and #2 force us to go to a doctor, even if we don't need or want to. I mean why should I go to a doctor to get medicine for things that are obvious? Example: head lice - uh hello, it's a bug and it's in my hair...duh.....if I can't read the outside of the box why would I be able to read my physicians handwriting???
Another problem with having no privacy is sales people. Just like Verio phoning up all the new clients in the DNS records, noone wants encyclopedia salesmen to know where they live or what their phone number is, etc. If we want to buy encyclopedias we'll call them.
And last but not least it is the power people can have over you. Mostly this is the government. I don't want the government to be able to profile me and others like me and make us the target of whatever. This wouldn't have to be just the government either it could be Jeffrey Dahmer or some other entity or individual.
There is just no way that I can see that less privacy would make American's more free. That's really impossible. Our privacy lets us speak out without fear of reprisals just like I am doing right now.
If I knew that everything I just wrote would be immediately forwarded to the FBI along with my name, and social security number, menses cycle, age, weight, color, financial status, dob, hair and eye color, copy of fingerprint, and the last 20 posts I did, last 100 web searches, & etc. Do you really think I would have written it?
Re:A very basic fact... (Score:2)
IMHO, Brin is being optimistic. If goverment surveilance went to the max today, I doubt any immediate problems would arise. Most democratic governments today do not, believe it or not, have any malicious intent towards their citizens as a whole. However, their is no guarantee that things will stay that way. If things changes, then it is too late to regret the powers we gave governemt.
Re:A very basic fact... (Score:3, Insightful)
If the government passes laws against civilian access to cameras, etc, it won't stop the government, or the rich. But the poor will not only be out of the loop (illegal cameras are expensive cameras) but they'll be punished if they ever compete.
If the laws put everyone on an equal footing then people can watch the rulers and the rich even while they're being watched themselves. Sure, no individual watcher is above corruption, but if we're all corrupted, does it count as corruption, or a changing society? If there are laws against the monitoring (as opposed to the use of knowledge from monitoring) it'll be hard to punish the people with smaller cameras, and police even now tend to go after the poor instead of the rich. If however the laws prevent the use of knowledge gained through snooping, we'll have the ammunition needed to take on the rich and powerful if they ever abuse their power enough for "us" to find it worth whistle-blowing.
I find the end of privacy to be inevitable, so I want some way to ensure we don't end up with 1984. I'd rather everyone could stare at me and vice versa (we'd all get over sexual hangups fairly soon) instead of only the elite few who control the police. Especially if those people could also watch the police and the officials, seeing that they followed their own laws.
It wouldn't be an ideal world, but it'd be better than others, and I think we're headed in that direction, like it or not.
Nice try (Score:3, Insightful)
TWW
Re:Nice try (Score:2, Insightful)
What he does sound upbeat about is the "if" vision. IF we can get the accountability, IF we can know who's looking, IF we can get the same views of the people in power as they get of us, THEN we'll have a Transparent Society that is not a 1984 dystopia.
As for who's going to watch the watchmen? The same people who do it today: advocates, journalists, activists, and crackpots. In other words, whoever cares.
Re:Nice try (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the problem. Laws designed to protect people's privacy are always abused by people in the public sphere to do dirty dealing in private.
We don't need Campaign Finance Reform. What we really need is for all of the political deliberations and contributions to be publicly available. Then, we could choose which politicians to support based on which special interests they listen and act upon.
Re:Nice try (Score:3, Informative)
Also, there need not be a system of ever-increasingly powerful watchers. If that were required, then even our 50% open society would be doomed. One alternative is to have (as we have now) several equal powers which balance each other out. In this way, if one makes decisions which are too extreme, the others can collectively put pressure on the one.
Re:Nice try (Score:4, Insightful)
I have always believed that privacy is a sociological construct that is overrated these days. Oversimplified, one could put it as "What are you afraid of other people seeing if you've got nothing to hide".
Us Belgians have lived with ID cards since before I was born. The government has always known the 'official address' of every Belgian. As far as I can remember, no abuse of that has been made that affects me. I don't know anyone else either who complains about it. Heck, I consider it very practical even ! No lumpy passports to carry around (and to forget) when I need to travel to the UK every other week...
So that's point one : giving up some privacy does not automatically lead to abuse. Point two : Loss of privacy can be made symmetrical. The more "they" know about you, the more you should be able to know about "them". I'm not gonna rgue this at length, 'cause I got work to do :^( At any rate, I believe that with a couple of carefully chosen rules, in many situations you can lose a little bit of privacy and gain freedom, and protection from abuse.
Philip
Parent
Credibility (Score:3, Insightful)
He does make a good point (Score:4, Interesting)
of course, this all begs the question: which came first, the paranoia of not wanting to be watched, or the laws that we're all trying to hide from?
Re:He does make a good point (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I care. Even if I had the freedom to smoke marijuana, I wouldn't want people to watch me smoke it, or even know that I did. Why? It's nobody's business but my own.
That attitude, "if you're obeying the law you don't need privacy" is a dangerous one. It implies that the only people who want privacy are people who are doing something Illegal, or at least something for which they are afraid of being caught.
Some people just want privacy because they don't think their personal lives are anybody elses business. I'm not ashamed of a word I've written in my journal, but I will be damned if I let you come to my house and read it.
Parent
As long as all have the same idea of freedom... (Score:3, Interesting)
Slippery slope (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the important factor IS that such things exist. If personal information is stored in a database that is easy for the powerful to access but difficult for the commoners to access, the powerful people WILL attempt to exploit it for their own desires and wants.
-Evan
Beuracracy not democracy (Score:3, Interesting)
Let the Doublespeak begin... (Score:2)
Re:Let the Doublespeak begin... (Score:2)
The old arguments (Score:3, Informative)
even if he has some "old ideas". some of these are very practical.
There's a whole shopping list we could ask for. The creation of a true office of the Inspector General of the United States. It doesn't exist. In each department, the inspectors report to the cabinet secretaries that appointed them. It's incestuous, as ridiculous as Enron hiring their accountants to be consultants. Autonomy would help. That's just one example.
The lightbulb, she goes on, y'know?
Please explain then... (Score:5, Interesting)
So if living one's life in full view is such a great thing, why do the powerful arrange things so that they (and their families) don't?
sPh
Re:Please explain then... (Score:2)
They could sell my information to Lorraine Bobbit or the KKK and if I ended up dead, they wouldn't have news reporters beating on their door.
Re:Please explain then... (Score:4, Interesting)
Where exactly in the US Constitution does it say that there is a protected class of people, say goverment employees, who get additional protection over and above the law? Does the Constitution not in fact explicity forbid granting of titles of nobility?
sPh
Parent
Brin's Book - The Transparent Society (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe I'm failing to adapt to change, but the prospect of what he proposes makes me really uncomfortable and could lead to a level of social conformity that most of us would find stiffing. Also, I don't know that I have that little faith in our (western civilization's - I'm Canadian) ability to govern our behaviour and that of our institutions.
The book is worth a read - I may just haul it out and take another look.
Listen to this man (Score:5, Interesting)
"Information wants to be free"
Apply this to information about YOU.
My point is, most of our actions are done in the public sphere, and can be observed by ANY casual observer. In theory, what anyone does in a public space, cannot be private by definition. Is it bad that people track you for your personal buying habits?
I dont think so, because I _could_ have spotted you buying it anyway.
Now, the problem is in WHO can see that data. F.E. if the governement or anyone really, has data on me, Id sure want to know what. So I should be granted access to that data. If only to correct errors made.
"Information is power"
It sure is. Just ask the MPAA.
Now who should have this power? Everyone. That way we can garantee supervising the supervisors.
So.. Privacy doesnt really exists, but that does not scare me. Information exists, and what scares me if the powers have infomation, that the public has no access too. That way the balance is off.
Gr
Brin's Foregone Conclusion? (Score:3, Insightful)
> Biometric-based I.D. cards for everybody are coming.
> Squint, look ahead 50 years and honestly tell me you
> can envision a world where such things are not simply
> assumed.
I think what bothered me most about the article was this particular foregone conclusion about the future. I hate to disappoint Brin, but I'm not so imaginatively myopic that his is the only future I can see.
> The important factor is not whether such cards exist,
> but whether they are a tool for robbing us of things
> we want and need.
This seems to imply that what we really want or need could be a _lack_ of such intrusive measures in our lives. There comes a point where if you're being challenged to validate your identity at every turn, we begin to adopt a mentality of "That which is not expressly permitted is automatically forbidden."
This flies in the face of the principles on which this nation was founded. As others have pointed out, read through the first ten ammendments (Bill of Rights) to the U.S. Constitution. Disregard what the courts have done to this fine set of principles in the last hundred years, and just read it.
If that doesn't say, "Anything not expressly forbidden is permitted, oh and by the way, these are limits that the powers can be can place on those 'forbiddens'" then I don't know what does.
Quite simply, the society that Brin sees us moving more towards is unamerican in its principles. If our government and society are to collapse and fail eventually, then let it do so because of a failure of the principles that it was founded on, not because of our collective unwillingness to stick to those principles.
Re:Brin's Foregone Conclusion? (Score:4, Insightful)
What Brin espouses is that the actions of those in power be visible to everyone, and that they be held accountable for those actions. Frankly, I can't think of anything more American, or closer to the principles the U.S. was founded on.
TheFrood
Parent
What happens when our Gov't breaks (Score:2, Interesting)
Our ( America's) new gov't was framed in the idea that gov't can't be perfect, and that if it gets really screwed up, citizens should have the power to revolt, and to create a new gov't. This, I believe, is the root behind the 2nd amendment. Regular common people, it was written, should have the right to bear arms, form up a non-state controlled militia, and fight for their rights if they need to. ( Of course they never dreamed how of the twisted ways liberals would try to interpret the second amendment. If only they would have been a little more specific.)
I agree with the author. We SHOULD be fighting intensely for rigorous oversight of the Gov't in the cases where we can't stop them from taking our freedoms.. But we should NOT embrace the erosion of our freedom. Freedom is not just "freedom from attack by foreign bad people." Freedom is also "freedom from your own gov't." As we let the gov't be more in control, and in the know regarding each of our lives, we really are setting ourselves up to be citizens of the Big Brother country of the future, where it will be totally impossible for people to revolt if the USA runs astray.
Was at one of his talks (Score:3, Interesting)
The problems that he outlines are very legit and there is only his solution as a way out. For example he says secrecy laws like in Europe are DUMB. Living in Europe I thought they were good, but he put in further terms.
Data is immortal. Hence with data secrecy laws what ends up happening is some people have power and others do not. And having run conferences and mailing lists that is the exact problem. Once I ok the use of my data I cannot control it. For example lets say I want a mortgage. In Europe I sign a sheet saying yes the bank has the right to look at all of my data. But the question what data will the bank look at? And how will they use that data? The secrecy laws do not address that issue. That is the crux of the problem with or without data secrecy laws. I have no idea how the data is being used.
David Brin argues you can give out all the data you want, but you have control on what is being seen and manipulated.
My favourite part of his book is the following (it starts off with that). We have privacy in public. For example lets say that you go to lunch with people. Do other people listen in on your conversation? No because people mind their own business. The reason is because people can see when you are not minding your own business. And that is the crux of his argument regarding privacy laws. We cannot tell companies or governments to mind their own business!
Spying infrastructures are a BAD idea. (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact is that most Americans don't care if they have the government oversite that he speaks of. They TRUST their government.... after all, we're the GOOD guys. We would NEVER do anything wrong.
I saw Phil Zimmermann speak a few years ago and Phil spoke about how technical infrastructures rarely go away. There are no laws mandating 120 volts @ 60 cycles in the US. It's just an infrastructure that's in place, that will likely not go away, ever.
The same will be true for the spying infrastructures that we're allowing our government to install.
Brin's argument assumes a truly awful government will never be elected or take power by coup. Apparently he knows nothing about history.
Installing these infrstructures is a terrible mistake that we will one day regret.
Rich...
Re:Spying infrastructures are a BAD idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
The U.S. has lost a good deal of that strong free press in the last decade as enormous corporate entities have bought entire outlets, replaced their management with new blood more amenable to corporate goals, and overall have created monolithic conservative institutions. We can witness CNN falling to this effect at the moment as "liberal" voices are replaced with moderate conservatives posing as such.
I think power by coup can only occur in countries that lack respect for the rule of law.
I think you both miss the point. A coup did occur in 2000, and the free press you speak of no longer existed to point out the madness in the Supreme Court's ruling, nor the riot in the Dade Count recount office, nor to to intelligently analyze the recount audit released late last year. Our press has become a herd of sheep. The most frightening development I have ever seen.
The constant terror of nuclear bombs I witnessed twenty years ago should pale in comparison to the collapse of a critical press when the current administration seized power. But sadly, the voices that used to shout the alarm have been muzzled.
Do we still have any privacy left to protect? (Score:2)
For example I would never open an account with an online bill paying service but as soon as my bank offerred one I jumped at the chance. I beleive that we have already traded any true privacy for the many conveniences that most of western civilization now demands. We are our own worst enemies in this regard. The most effective means of protecting ourselves is not to try to hide our personal information but to limit how others can legally use it.
A bit Naive. (Score:3, Interesting)
I do not think the problem is that the majority of people are stupid more that the majority of people are apethetic and lazy about issues which could effect them in both the long/short run, and unless something is shown to have a very direct immediate negative effect on there day to day lives
"Government power is kept in check by stripping the powerful down and subjecting them to scrutiny in the application of their delegated power, so that abuse of the power can be caught and rapidly dealt with. We are protected by enhancing our ability to see them, not by reducing their ability to see us."
The whole issue of who funds party's running for Government needs to be addressed before we will see truly open and observable government and business
People will not wake up one morning and suddenly find all there rights taken away and a secret police officer at there door enquiring about the printed copy of the anarchists cookbook under there bed
Total transparency for us; total privacy for power (Score:5, Insightful)
Make every transaction, every movement traceable! Use scanners and biochips to make sure no one can perform a terraist [sic: Texan] act.
And how would this have stopped the men from threatening the passengers of the planes with boxcutters? The idea of a suicidal attack is that the attacker dies. What the hell use is the post-mortem activity of a dead man? The ability to throw every semite he knew into jail for the rest of their lives?
If we all lead transparent lives, then we can all live in peace --
Stop there.
The Bush administration has put ALL of its records into a vault, effectively for all time. And Reagan's. And Bush the First's. And Jeb's. Cheney is leading the way to establishing a totally opaque ruling junta. They are building walls around themselves. Hell, we don't even know where the Vice President is!!!
Guess which president's records are being selectively released, juiciest scandal-provoking one's first, by the administration? Oh, guess, guess!! Of course, all surrounding records that may show the releases are out-of-context have been sealed. Why? National security, of course.
Point? Privacy is sacrosanct -- for this administration, and all future Republican administrations. And their corporate friends.
Think of it: you ever read the minutes of ANY meeting of ANY corporation such as Enron? EVER?
Their privacy is sacred. And will remain so.
The only thing we will get from "total transparency" is the loss of common rights of privacy for suspiciously arabic foreigners, all non-corporate Americans, and anyone who pisses off the future right-wing administrations, such as popular former Democratic presidents and near-presidents, and journalists who don't agree with the adminstration.
Why in the hell do sane men suddenly get Royalty on the brain whenever a right-wing adminstration comes into power, but want armed citizens ready for revolt when a non-right wing president holds office?
The current power structure has shown what it will do with "transparency": nail its enemies and reward its friends.
No, I think I'll stay with my freedom, if it's all the same to you.
Re:Total transparency for us; total privacy for po (Score:4, Interesting)
Stop there.
The Bush administration has put ALL of its records into a vault, effectively for all time. And Reagan's. And Bush the First's. And Jeb's. Cheney is leading the way to establishing a totally opaque ruling junta. They are building walls around themselves. Hell, we don't even know where the Vice President is!!!
Did you even read Brin's article? If you had, you would have realized that the problem he has with the current debate is exactly the thing you point out--that our loss of privacy is currently happening without a corrisponding loss of privacy within the Government.
Without that corrisponding loss of privacy within the Government, it strips us of our own privacy without the necessary controls to allow us to know who has information on us and what they are doing with it. It also allows a small, elite class of people to arise who can control information on themselves (and, thus, do great harm or illegal stuff a'la Enron), while the rest of us are relegated to "sheep."
Until this transparency happens in Government, there is a problem.
The current power structure has shown what it will do with "transparency": nail its enemies and reward its friends.
And that's why Brin, in his article, called for transparency within Government. Otherwise, we cannot watch the watchers.
No, I think I'll stay with my freedom, if it's all the same to you.
But you have already lost your freedom. Enron happened; the powerful elite who can control the public's ability to see what they are doing already have closed the shutters and have already committed crimes which took money out of your pocket (if you are an investor or live in California and buy electricity here).
Only transparency (which means also the transparency to see what Bush--and Clinton--had to do with Enron) will allow you to prevent a bunch of elite thieves from picking your pocket in the future.
Parent
Not very convincing (Score:3, Insightful)
This argument seems a bit overly optimistic. Even if we have oversight, how do we know the government (or corporate America) is really disclosing everything they are doing with our private information. If Enron has taught us anything it's that corporations do not do what is in the best interest of even their own shareholders, let alone the random Joe Schmoe. Brin points to the Freedom of Information act as being a good example of oversight of the government. Is it? A lot of what people ask for comes back highly redacted.
Furthermore, his solution seems like it would be expensive. How much would all these oversight committees cost? Who's going to want to raise taxes to pay for them?
The simplest solution is to just protect people's privacy. I really don't see why Brin has a problem with that.
Several times, Brin also talks about how our Liberties are not based on controlling what the government knows about us. Really? Well, he must be ignoring those handy laws about the government not being able to search our homes unwarranted, and that people are assumed innocent until proven guilty. What he is advocating is a police state, where anything that is yours is the government's right to know about ("I cannot believe how many sincere civil libertarians have actually convinced themselves that freedom is best preserved by blinding government. That has nothing whatsoever to do with how we acquired our present liberties."). Wrong David. That has everything to do with it.
Why It Just Can't Work That Way (Score:3, Informative)
The global small town (Score:3, Insightful)
It's likely to happen regardless of whether we want it to or not -- between the government using every opportunity to stampede the sheeple into allowing increased governmental powers to "protect" them, and old folks whiling away their time with video cameras (I think that was a Brin novel...). But several things are needed to make the good balance the bad:
1. Government should be at least as subject to surveillance by citizens as the other way around. That is, if a corporate official comes around a congressman's home or office the day before a vote, we should at least be able to see him going in and out. If they go out to a restaurant, we can tape them -- if they are taping us.
2. There are a few government issues which have to be worked in secret -- weapons designs (sometimes), military planning, police investigations. But these categories should be strictly defined, as limited as possible. Everything else must be open to the public, and classified items must be opened up as soon as possible. There must be severe penalties for overclassifying materials -- mandatory minimum of being barred from ever working for the government again, plus fines and possible jail time. Don't depend on gov't prosecutors to enforce this -- private citizens can file charges before a grand jury, prosecute if the grand jury indicts, and get well-paid out of the fines. (I know, that's encouraging the sharks to go feed themselves. Better on gov't officials than us...)
3. There are public areas and private areas. You DON'T surveil private areas without a warrant. If you saw what Mr. Jones and Mrs. Smith were doing inside Mr. Smith's house, you'd better keep it to yourself, you damned peeping tom!
4. One big fear about a no-secrets society is that we have things we don't want the neighbors to know about -- not illegal stuff, but embarrassing. If you knew what your neighbors were hiding, you probably don't have anything to be embarrasssed about . We'll have to get used to people not being perfect. Small-towners know that -- and the only ones that are excessively concerned about what their neighbors are doing are the old ladies without a life... ("Old lady" is not defined by gender...)
5. Don't expect perfection from politicians, either. J. Edgar Hoover once had enormous power, more from fear of what might be in his secret files than from respect of his abilities as director of the FBI. Remember, once it's out in the open, it's not blackmail material any more...
5. Repeal a hell of a lot of outmoded laws. We're not only worried about the neighbors seeing something embarrassing, but also about some malicious DA digging up a 150 year old law and prosecuting.
The cart goes in front of the horse? (Score:3, Insightful)
Think about it. Greater insight into what our government is doing, supposedly on our behalf, is a Good Thing(tm) independent of Brin's transparent society ideal.
Re:The cart goes in front of the horse? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Privacy / Reality (Score:3, Insightful)
If my kroger buyer card shows that I do not buy pork and I charge fuel and fertilizer on my lawn care company visa, I do not want to be questioned by the FBI as a terrorist. The oversite needs to be on the use of the data, not it's existance.
My doctor needs the ability to genetically screen for disease, but my insurance company, even if it knows my flaws, should not be allowed to charge more. In the past I had the security through obscurity that my privacy provides, but this is no longer the case.
The transparent society is an open source society. The 'source code' of an individual are their life experiences. The exploits are already in the wild. (People generally by milk and produce in a grocery so why are those sections the furthest apart?).
The success of the transparent society will depend on the protections we provide for our most valuable intellectual property we own, ourselves.
Lawrence Lessig has an article [sfgate.com] that descibes a new system for protecting IP. Add ability to copyright your personal data and we have a start on the Transparent Society.
SD
Dumb quote (Score:3, Interesting)
By fiat, Bush has declared his record as governor of Texas sealed, his dad's sealed, and of course, Reagan's -- a lot of his staff are Reagan's people, and it could be very distressing to read the Iran-Contra records.
Somehow, Jeb Bush got his records sealed, a neat deal since he is violating the state of Florida's sunshine laws.
What the Bush admin wants, and corporations want, and the spooks want, and federal cops want, is access to OUR lives, for snooping, marketing, tracking, occasional blackmail, who knows?
What they do not want is their activities to be shown in the light of day. Ever.
Brin's nuts if he thinks we get a transparent government in trade for us stripping naked on a Homeland Security Monitor's command. We will get a fascist dictatorship beyong the dreams of any Austrian paperhanger.
And ten years from now, a pony nuke will detonate in front of the Statue of Liberty, and won't we all look like goddam idiots.
Not a single thing that the constitution's rewriters are proposing will stop a determined attack. They will get through, and we will respond by becoming even more psychotic.
There is NO correlation with privacy and vulnerability. Singapore, a nation which posts goverment monitors at apartment buildings to monitor the citizenry, was recently amazed when the CIA told their authorities that they had three, THREE Al Queda cells operating in their Perfect, Safe, Orderly World. Their Homeland Security, probably the most insane in the world, was totally flummoxed.
I imagine their response will be more instrusive monitoring of all citizens.
Insanity on more insanity. We discover a fire in our house, and we try to douse it with gasoline. Since that doesn't work, obviously we need more gasoline; and shout down that man over there if he unpatriotically points out that it won't work.