The Myth of the 'Transparent Society'...

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.

Bruce Schneier excerpted from The Myth of the 'Transparent Society' @ Wired.com

Great argument and everyone should read it. It lays out facts in a context that's difficult to refute. It's to the point, insightful, and it doesn't try to please anybody.

Personally, I'm in full agreement with what what the piece says and advocates. Limited government control is best for liberty.

Rather handily disputes the logic underlying the misguided belief "If I've done nothing wrong, I have nothing to fear".


Note to those who would argue in favor of expanded government surveillence "for protection against terrorists", and those who would argue that such such surveillence "does not infringe upon the citizen's civil rights, even without rule of law:


Remeber, even though you may have nothing to hide, you do not have the government's power to determine what will be done with what the government finds; and whether what they find constitutes "something wrong".

reply to post by Bhadhidar


Well said and another great argument! Thanks for your reply.

[edit on 9-3-2008 by Areal51]

Yes it is a good argument.

We cannot choose to disclose information on our own accord... not when we are under surveillance.

Sort of like you cannot choose to tell somebody what your favorite hobby is if they can watch your life. They will already know. You cannot give someone your number, your I.D. or anything else if they can just whip it up on their consoles... They take that information through force. That is called 'surveillance' or national security - taking information from private and public sources.

Definitely something to this argument...