Bubblegum Crisis 2040

[mattd]

Abhorrent markets may arise. For example, anonymous systems and untraceable 
digital cash have some obvious implications for the arranging of contract 
killings and such. (The greatest risk in arranging such hits is that 
physical meetings expose the buyers and sellers of such services to stings. 
Crypto anarchy lessens, or even eliminates, this risk, thus lowering 
transaction costs. The risks to the actual triggermen are not lessened, but 
this is a risk the buyers need not worry about. Think of anonymous escrow 
services which hold the digital money until the deed is done. Lots of 
issues here. It is unfortunate that this area is so 
little-discussed....people seem to have an aversion for exploring the 
logical consequences in such areas.)
Can crypto anarchy be stopped? Although the future evolution in unclear, as 
the future almost always is, it seems unlikely that present trends can be 
reversed:
Dramatic increases in bandwidth and local, privately-owned computer power.
Exponential increase in number of Net users.
Explosion in "degrees of freedom" in personal choices, tastes, wishes, goals.
Inability of central governments to control economies, cultural trends, 
etc. [9]
The Net is integrally tied to economic transactions, and no country can 
afford to "disconnect" itself from it. (The U.S.S.R. couldn't do it, and 
they were light-years behind the U.S., European, and Asian countries. And 
in a few more years, no hope of limiting these tools at all, something the 
U.S. F.B.I. has acknowledged. [11]
Technological Inevitability: These tools are already in widespread use, and 
only draconian steps to limit access to computers and communications 
channels could significantly impact further use. (Scenarios for 
restrictions on private use of crypto.)
As John Gilmore has noted, "the Net tends to interpret censorship as 
damage, and routes around it." This applies as well to attempts to 
legislate behavior on the Net. (The utter impossibility of regulating the 
worldwide Net, with entry points in more than a hundred nations, with 
millions of machines, is not yet fully recognized by most national 
governments. They still speak in terms of "controlling" the Net, when in 
fact the laws of one nation generally have little use in other countries.)
And as for a camera-filled society, Brin spins out a more positive possible 
future, one already hinted at by the real-life furor surrounding the 
videotape of the Rodney King beating. "Imagine how the social climate of 
our inner cities will change," he says, "when both the cops and ghetto 
youths carry around cheap little shoulder-mounted TV cameras, monitoring 
their encounters in real time. Conviction rates may go up, while illegal 
rousting and hassling of the innocent will certainly go down. 
Accountability goes both ways."
Brin's on such a roll it seems a shame to point out that cameras only have 
power when accompanied by the political and social will to act on the 
information they record. Despite the infamous King videotape, the Simi 
Valley jury still acquitted the accused officers.
But the one thing that freedom needs to survive--and without which it must 
fail--is accountability. In other words, the answer is not masks. It is 
light. Not armor plate, but the light saber."
Brin's espousal of openness and corporate accountability also put him at 
odds with the "techno-libertarian" ethos so prevalent among other 
science-fiction and technology writers such as George Gilder and techie 
organs like Wired magazine.
"Today, we have as many bright young libertarians who believe passionately 
in the mystical power of the market as [there were] bright young college 
graduates transfixed by the persuasive mantras of Marxism in the 1930s," 
Brin says. "Each generation has to learn the hard way that no ideology can 
describe complex human beings, who are both cooperative and competitive by 
nature."
In a similar vein, it would seem that the tug-of-war between privacy and 
openness needn't be an all-or-nothing matter, at least not in a society 
where citizens clamor for "call return" features on their phones (a perfect 
real-world example of Mutual Transparency) while simultaneously asking to 
have unlisted numbers.
"When given a choice between privacy and accountability," observes Brin, 
"most people tend to choose privacy for themselves and accountability for 
others."
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/02.06.97/cover/brin1-9706.html
David Brin has a lot to say and says it discursively, but he's done his 
homework--dipping into an impressive range of social science, 
philosophical, crytographic, and technical literature--thought carefully, 
marshalled compelling arguments seasoned with humor and bright metaphors, 
and, as a result, is worth listening to, arguing with, or simply pondering. 
The Transparent Society works out, with much supporting detail, ideas about 
secrecy and privacy first raised in Brin's magisterial novel, Earth, and 
does so in a civilizational context. I risk doing Brin and his book grave 
injustice by oversimplifying, but let me say Brin views "accountability" 
and "criticism" as central to the progress of neo-Western civilization 
(fight the power!) and further posits that criticism works very like 
T-cells in an immune system, providing (to a greater and greater extent as 
the collective grows in knowledge) autonomous and impersonal correctives 
against all manner of "error." Brin argues for greater informational 
transparency--almost total disclosure--observing that, if universal 
surveillance cameras and other snoop technologies are inevitable (and they 
almost certainly are), then a generalized oversight capability, or a mutual 
surveillance capacity (in other words, my ability to watch the government 
with the same technologies that the government can watch me) is the answer 
to the classic question, quis custodiet ipsos custodes (who shall guard the 
guardians?)? In short, we all will. Brin's ingenious argumentation may 
strike some readers as cavalier or reductionist. It's not. It's serious and 
is, moreover, and a serious response to flamewar proponents of "encryption 
as the answer" to the privacy dilemmas of the wired age
Suppose that the cost of surveillance technology continues to fall. What 
are our options?

(a) try to ban certain types of surveillance technologies altogether

(b) try to restrict surveillance technologies so that "we" have it but 
"they" don't

(c) try to escape surveillance technology by using encryption

(d) try to encourage broad access to surveillance technology

David Brin argues persuasively that (d) is the least problematic solution. 
The other strategies are both more difficult to execute and less likely to 
produce a desirable outcome. For example, with (c) you have the problem 
that encryption may not be perfectly reliable. Moreover, even if you can 
encrypt your bits, you cannot encrypt your atoms. So you still may be 
subject to surveillance by a network of cameras, by centralized databases, etc.
The greatest strength of the book is the way that Brin analyzes the 
situation from the perspective of different opponents to his position. The 
greatest weakness is that he rarely delves into details about how to 
implement his overall recommendation. What incentives need to be created? 
How do laws need to be changed, etc.? He offers hints, and occasional 
examples, but leaves a lot out.
The relevance of this book has increased dramatically as a result of the 
terrorist attacks of September 11. For example, on p. 320 there is this 
passage:
"Terrorists operate under cloaks of anonymity and secrecy...This is 
especially true of their concealed finances...the real impulse to force 
them open may only come after some band of terrorists manages to kill 
thousands..."
What Brin advocates is not a stronger police state but a more open system 
that allows any citizen to trace how money flows. Thus, although he would 
agree with the national security establishment that secret bank accounts 
are a problem, he would part ways with the establishment in that he would 
not give the police special privileges to examine bank transactions. 
Instead, he would expose such transactions to anyone.
This is just one of many interesting ideas in this provocative book
This is a great book. Its well researched and takes issues a step further 
for analysis. But, I do think that some of his solutions will not work in 
the real world.
The basic premise of the book is that privacy and freedom are not 2 sides 
of the same coin. He goes on to explain, giving various examples, that if 
we lose our freedom, we will have no privacy left to defend. But, if we 
have our freedom, we will be in a position to demand some privacy.
His solution is to have complete transparency i.e. shine the light in both 
the directions...from the govt. towards the people and vice versa. He 
explains how this will work wonders and solve various problems and he 
analyzes each problem in detail. Although he has suggestions on how to do 
it, he does NOT have any concrete method to make the govt or other power 
houses to be accountable. Thats where accountability and transparency 
fail.(+ APster succeeds)