Transparency Isn't A Substitute For Privacy
from the power-imbalances dept
Slashdot points to a great Bruce Schneier article debunking the idea that "transparency" is better than privacy. People like David Brin argue that technological change is rapidly making the concept of privacy obsolete, and that instead of lamenting this fact, we should make sure that everyone, including the government, is subject to increased "transparency." But Schneier does a great job of explaining what's wrong with this theory: the less power you have, the more important your privacy is to you. If the government knows everything about you, and you know everything about the government, that's not a fair trade. The government can use its increased knowledge to coerce you in a variety of ways that you're not going to like. But even if you know about everything the government is doing, you're not going to have the power to stop it from doing things you don't like. Reduced privacy for everyone increases the power of those who already have power, and increases the vulnerability of those without power.
The other problem is that in the real world, accepting less privacy for ordinary citizens isn't going to lead to increased transparency in government. Government officials who might want to put more cameras up on public streets are not going to want cameras installed in police headquarters. The Bush administration wants our electronic communications to be more "transparent" to NSA eavesdropping, but they haven't reciprocated by giving us information about how those eavesdropping programs work. It's a mistake to equate government transparency with reduced privacy for private citizens because transparency of government activities and privacy for ordinary citizens are both ways of limiting the ability of the government to violate our rights.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bruce schneier, david brin, privacy, transparency
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait a minute..
That just completely defies logic...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looks like an oxymoron to me. Here are some more
http://www.oxymoronlist.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David Brin replies
You clearly never read The Transparent Society, nor have a twinkling what it means. In fact, 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. Um... exactly as we are supposed to now.
An accident that the most knowing people were the same people who invented modern privacy?
.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.
But I am wasting my time. Subtlety is not in your purview. Go on with comfy oversimplifications and strawmen. They suit.
With cordial regards,
David Brin
http://www.davidbrin.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: David Brin replies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who let the troll in?
An accident that the most knowing people were the same people who invented modern privacy?
But after I read that line, I realized it was impossible to take you seriously in this matter. Perhaps you are good at selling books, but that does not mean you actually understand what you write about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't that re reason guns are legal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't that re reason guns are legal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too late
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alas, a boring discussion
1) The blogmaster here outright fabulated that I call "privacy obsolete", either proving he never even glanced at The Transparent Society or making him a "fibber"...
2) Yes, the mighty are looking at us ever-more. Extrapolate current trends and you'll get the one-way telescreens of Orwell's "1984". So... we all hate that. But how to fight it? By passing laws? Heinlein said "Privacy laws only make the bugs smaller."
Schneier offers no solutions, but I do. It's called "sousveillance" or looking back to the watchers. It's what (imperfectly) we already do. In fact, Schneier even cited an example! (Missing the irony.)
Tech empowered citizens who ASSERTIVELY demand the power to look back may get enough of that abilit (imperfect) to keep elites careful about pushing us too far. And if you sneer at that, then what's your suggestion?
Mine? Try broadening your assumptions and reading a little, before leaping to cynical conclusions. The Transparent Society may infuriate you. But you'll know more after reading it. And page 206 is considered one of the top successful prophecies of the last 20 years.
With cordial regards,
David Brin
http://www.davidbrin.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lol at your belief that your vote makes a difference with who get elected
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Token Red State View
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Token Red State View
I would prefer not to take their (or your) word on that.
Maybe they could spend the resources they're using to spy on Americans to fix their own email system so that potentially incriminating emails don't conveniently disappear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seriously? I have to thank you for that....I needed a good laugh. I was honestly hoping nobody bought into the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" argument anymore.
I will point you to an excellent essay by Professor Daniel Solve of the George Washington University Law School, where he does a very good job of explaining why this argument does not work.
Essentially, the "nothing to hide" argument presumes that people only want to keep 'bad' things private, which is a narrow and incomplete view of privacy.
I have to assume you're doing something illegal, since you're so worried about this.
Assume away. I can tell you that you're wrong, but if this is the stance you're taking, I doubt you'll believe me. Personally, I value my right to privacy, and I fail to see why I should be required to give it up just because you don't value yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re #19 Trvth
Marvin K Mooney will you please leave now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re #19 Trvth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
After all, 99% of professors are liberals, right?
And yet it's the supposed conservatives that are supposed to champion limited government interference. They should be the ones arguing against it the most.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]