home > NF reviews > David Brin
Google > David Brin


Books

Papers/Articles

Other information

Books : reviews

[cover]

David Brin. The Transparent Society. Perseus. 1998

Rating: 2
[ unmissable | great stuff | worth reading | passes the time | waste of time | unfinishable ]

reviewed 14 June 2005

Surveillance technology is advancing, and we can't hold it back. Brin argues that attempts to do so, via privacy and strong cryptography, are not only doomed to failure, but will make things worse, as they will protect only the strong. He argues for the opposite: fewer walls, and more transparency -- and that only in such an open world can freedom prevail.

In particular, he argues for symmetric transparency, where we can see them just as much as they can see us. Only with debate and criticism can errors be uncovered and progress made. It is easier for the powerful to hide, and they will use secrecy to hide their inevitable mistakes, unless forced to be transparent.

p81. the case for monitoring executives is much greater because their performance is more crucial to company success, and because their errors ... may have far greater consequences.

I really, really wanted to dislike this book. I tend to come down on the privacy side, not seeing why people should know so much about each other (because not believing such symmetry is even an option). But Brin weaves a compelling argument for the way the transparent world could be.

p339, note 45. What matters to an artist nowadays is not how many people hate you, but how much attention you can get. Those who disapprove cannot have you burned at the stake. ... In a free and diverse society, majority opinion is meaningless to all but politicians. Sell yourself to a select group. Become a cult figure to just 5 percent, and you can reap rich rewards of money and ego from millions, while having the satisfaction of calling the remaining 95 percent idiots. Talk about having your cake and eating it too!

p347, note 123. it interesting to juxtapose what two motion pictures from the same franchise say about the toxicity of ideas. Throughout the film Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, viewers are shown a side plot about a daring thirst for knowledge. Characters in that film boldly create an entire solar system, including a planet covered with new life forms. The story ends with them gazing proudly at their beautiful creation. But the sequel, written and directed by others, seemed obsessed with reversing this theme. Step by step, Search for Spock checked off every box of the "Frankenstein Syndrome," preaching that humans who arrogate the powers of heaven will be punished, their false creations destroyed, and the individual responsible for this act of hubris killed by his own monster.

He paints an optimistic picture of a transparent society where, even though they can, people won't invade each other's privacy, out of a new form of politeness -- they way that people don't just stare at each other in public nowadays. And also because, with symmetric transparency, we could stare right back. Call me cynical, but I doubt it. Never mind the severely disturbed psycho stalkers -- if someone is looking at me, I have to know that before I can look back at them. And Brin's symmetry is legal (I have the right), not technological (I have the knowledge and capability).

The book was written before 9/11, which leads to such prescient passages as:

p105. As a mental experiment, let's ... try to envisage what might have happened if those bombers had actually succeeded in toppling both towers of New York's World Trade Center, killing tens of thousands. .... Now picture the public reaction if the FBI ever managed to show real (or exaggerated) evidence that they were impeded in preventing the disaster by an inability to tap coded transmissions sent by the conspirators. They would follow this proof with a petition for new powers, to prevent the same thing from happening again. ... once a bureaucracy gets a new prerogative of surveillance, it is unlikely ever to give it up again.

Post-9/11, the chances of symmetric transparency being an option have receded dramatically. But Brin makes a point that is now even more important to bear in mind: we should not assume that we have to trade off freedom for security; in fact, they increase hand in hand, and, despite various high-profile atrocities, we in the West live in both the freest and the most secure world there has ever been.

But despite these caveats, Brin has produced a well-argued, rational, calm, and thought-provoking book, well worth reading, and well worth debating.