5 ms·

I am annoyed by some people failing to see the difference in privacy for governments and people. People have an inherent need for privacy, while government has

by kilian 16y ago

I am annoyed by some people failing to see the difference in privacy for governments and people. People have an inherent need for privacy, while government has an inherent need for transparency, by virtue of their public service. Something completely unrelated, but that is a very well designed (print) page.

panarky 16y ago
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_pow.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/03/privacy_and_po...
- jdp23 16y ago
  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.
  - elblanco 16y ago
    Can you recall any of Brin's ideas on the subject? (It's funny since I just started reading Sundiver the other day!)
    - jdp23 16y ago
      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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society
- webelos 16y ago
  Your same argument can be applied to the power differential between modern corporations (often amoral agents) and individuals.
  - Create 16y ago
    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_Corporation https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Corporati...
    - westicle 16y ago
      I think that is the point webelos was making. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amoral http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amoral
jnovek 16y ago
It's extra annoying that this was referred to as the "nerd ideology" by Mr. Lanier. Anyone with even a cursory understanding of geek culture knows that while it advocates institutional transparency, it also advocates personal privacy.
- Natsu 16y ago
  That article was nothing but link bait. As soon as I saw the headline submitted to HN, I knew that its purpose and that I should not click it.
- svlla 16y ago
  Lanier is well-known for being a bad writer (and convoluted thinker) who somehow still manages to get published.
  - neilk 16y ago
    He is turning into the go-to quote machine for scaremongers. He is legitimately a hacker and yet is guaranteed to hold opinions that provide vague justification for the most ignorant fears about the internet. He also sees everything as a recapitulation of his own disillusionment with 1990s cyber-ideologies; he doesn't acknowledge that there are any other stories to tell. I used to enjoy the exercise of thinking about Lanier's contrary positions, but then I saw him comparing Wikipedia to Stalinism in the documentary "Truth in Numbers?" It's a point he makes at length in his new book You Are Not A Gadget. Uh yeah, ok, whatever, dude. His function is now to demonstrate what side of an issue to not be on.
sharednothing 16y ago
The argument is flipped in a fascist context. Hint: look around.

by kilian 16y ago

panarky 16y ago

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_pow.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/03/privacy_and_po...

jdp23 16y ago
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.
- elblanco 16y ago
  Can you recall any of Brin's ideas on the subject? (It's funny since I just started reading Sundiver the other day!)
  - jdp23 16y ago
    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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society
webelos 16y ago
Your same argument can be applied to the power differential between modern corporations (often amoral agents) and individuals.
- Create 16y ago
  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_Corporation https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Corporati...
  - westicle 16y ago
    I think that is the point webelos was making. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amoral http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amoral

jnovek 16y ago

It's extra annoying that this was referred to as the "nerd ideology" by Mr. Lanier. Anyone with even a cursory understanding of geek culture knows that while it advocates institutional transparency, it also advocates personal privacy.

Natsu 16y ago
That article was nothing but link bait. As soon as I saw the headline submitted to HN, I knew that its purpose and that I should not click it.
svlla 16y ago
Lanier is well-known for being a bad writer (and convoluted thinker) who somehow still manages to get published.
- neilk 16y ago
  He is turning into the go-to quote machine for scaremongers. He is legitimately a hacker and yet is guaranteed to hold opinions that provide vague justification for the most ignorant fears about the internet. He also sees everything as a recapitulation of his own disillusionment with 1990s cyber-ideologies; he doesn't acknowledge that there are any other stories to tell. I used to enjoy the exercise of thinking about Lanier's contrary positions, but then I saw him comparing Wikipedia to Stalinism in the documentary "Truth in Numbers?" It's a point he makes at length in his new book You Are Not A Gadget. Uh yeah, ok, whatever, dude. His function is now to demonstrate what side of an issue to not be on.

sharednothing 16y ago

The argument is flipped in a fascist context. Hint: look around.