Forced openness in government reduces the relative power differential between the two, and is generally good. Forced openness in laypeople increases the relative power, and is generally bad.
The Myth of the 'Transparent Society'
Bruce Schneier
03.06.08 | 12:00 AM
When I write and speak about privacy, I am regularly confronted with the mutual disclosure argument. Explained in books like David Brin's The Transparent Society, the argument goes something like this: In a world of ubiquitous surveillance, you'll know all about me, but I will also know all about you. The government will be watching us, but we'll also be watching the government. This is different than before, but it's not automatically worse. And because I know your secrets, you can't use my secrets as a weapon against me.
This might not be everybody's idea of utopia -- and it certainly doesn't address the inherent value of privacy -- but this theory has a glossy appeal, and could easily be mistaken for a way out of the problem of technology's continuing erosion of privacy. Except it doesn't work, because it ignores the crucial dissimilarity of power.
You cannot evaluate the value of privacy and disclosure unless you account for the relative power levels of the discloser and the disclosee.
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.
An example will make this clearer. You're stopped by a police officer, who demands to see identification. Divulging your identity will give the officer enormous power over you: He or she can search police databases using the information on your ID; he or she can create a police record attached to your name; he or she can put you on this or that secret terrorist watch list. Asking to see the officer's ID in return gives you no comparable power over him or her. The power imbalance is too great, and mutual disclosure does not make it OK.
You can think of your existing power as the exponent in an equation that determines the value, to you, of more information. The more power you have, the more additional power you derive from the new data.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Ahem
In a world of ubiquitous surveillance, you'll know all about me, but I will also know all about you. The government will be watching us, but we'll also be watching the government.
What planet is that guy living on? There's pretty much an inverse relationship between what a government (and its surrogates, chartered corporations) know about the populace, and vice versa. The extreme example is East Germany 1945-1989 (where the population knew next to nothing about their government, but the Stasi had over 100K agents in a population of 11 million); going the opposite direction, I could cite New Zealand, where privacy rights are taken very seriously (no ID cards, for example) and the voters are among the best informed in the world.
he's presenting a
he's presenting a hypothetical. brin made the argument over 10 years ago that there was no level of privacy that couldn't be broken either by powerful individuals/institutions so the best we could hope for was true transparency. open EVERYTHING up.
on a one-on-one basis i think the writer is right here. but at a societal level i think it becomes a bit more complicated. if the police officer for example isn't just being surveilled by the person he stops, but by everyone else watching the camera...and perhaps watching him in his office...then that would possibly negate the fact that he could do more with the information he has.
the problem I see on the other hand is information overload. the more resources you have the more insane bits of information you could throw at someone engaged in surveillance. i'm reminded of legal cases in which some corporation or other is asked to "hand over all pertinent documents" and they end up handing someone over one million documents.