Hacker News Reader

Comment by panarky | Hacker News Reader

Let's be clear: we need governments to be transparent because of the power differential between governments and individuals.

Bruce Schneier said it well [1]:

"All aspects of government work best when the relative power between the governors and the governed remains as small as possible -- when liberty is high and control is low.

Forced openness in government reduces the relative power differential between the two, and is generally good. Forced openness in laypeople increases the relative power differential, and is generally bad."

[1] http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/03/privacy_and_po...

View on HN

Your same argument can be applied to the power differential between modern corporations (often amoral agents) and individuals.

Corporations have nothing to do with morals. It is business, not personal.

The film's assessment is effected via the diagnostic criteria in the DSM-IV; Robert Hare, a University of British Columbia psychology professor and a consultant to the FBI, compares the profile of the contemporary profitable business corporation to that of a clinically-diagnosed psychopath. The documentary concentrates mostly upon North American corporations, especially those of the United States.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Corporati...

I think that is the point webelos was making.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amoral

Bruce spoke about the liberty vs. control dimension at CFP in 2005 in Seattle. David Brin had been on the opening panel giving his take on the transparent society so it was a great compare-and-contrast.

Can you recall any of Brin's ideas on the subject?

(It's funny since I just started reading Sundiver the other day!)

Pretty much what he said in his book [1]: that the state won't allow any privacy in the future and so the only solution is to require a two-way transparency. There are some good insights here but in the end it ignores the power dynamics (state and corporate power is so much greater than individual citizens', and there's so much privilege for the wealthy and tech-savvy , that transparency's value applies asymmetrically) and presupposes a choice between two bad options.

The book continues to be very influential and so is worth reading -- just take it with a grain of salt, remembering that he's writing as a wealthyish white guy who's never had to face unpleasant consequences from being on the receiving end of transparency.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society

Reply on news.ycombinator.com