I recently finished David Brin's book on surveillance technology, The Transparent Society. The thesis, as I can best explain it, is that the cameras, databases, and other types of observation technology are going to become more effective, and less expensive during the next decade. Brin maintains that the worst policy decision imaginable is to try to ban this technology. This would only result in restricting the next generation of surveillance technology to elites, which he defines as: government agencies, the super-wealthy, organized crime, and individuals with technical expertise. His solution to this problem is to open the technology up and make it available to everyone. In short, his answer to the question, "Who will watch the watchers?", is "The watched."
I'm bringing this topic up now, because an article and interview with David Brin have recently popped up on the internet. This allows you to get the core of Brin's idea without having to read the book, or settle for my rather inarticulate explanation.
If you're interested, I'd recommend starting with this informal interview
with David Brin.
...There are dozens of potential ways to increase accountability, while at the same time allowing our paid protectors to do their jobs better. But these measures aren't on the table, because both sides benefit from this loony notion of a tradeoff between safety and freedom.
Q: Why does that notion have so many proponents?
A: Because they benefit! You can't count the number of times you've seen on TV a debate between some civil libertarian and a "security expert" -- screaming at each other about this so-called "tradeoff." What you don't notice is what happens when the camera light goes off and the network cuts to commercial. How happy the producer is with this simplistic gladiatorial show. Certainly both interviewees are delighted. They got to pose and preen and shout like pro-wrestlers on TV!
Dr. Brin has also completed an article for Salon this month. This goes into greater detail than the interview, but isn't as entertaining to read.
While a flood of new discoveries may seem daunting, they should not undermine the core values of a calm and knowledgeable citizenry. Quite the opposite: While privacy may have to be redefined, the new technologies of surveillance should and will be the primary countervailing force against tyranny.
In any event, none of those who denounce the new technologies have shown how it will be possible to stop this rising tide.
Now that we all have a little background information, I was hoping that the discussion would focus on, but not be limited to, three points:
1) Is David Brin's proposal flawed?
2) What would be the best way to implement reciprocal transparency? How can we watch the elites?
3) In the interview, David Brin states:
We need to find ways of ensuring that shy people can live in this coming transparent society without becoming second-class citizens.
Is this achievable? If so, how will we do it? |
