From: hal@finney.org
Date: Fri Jun 22 2001 - 10:06:38 MDT
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> I've now put an edited version of my Extro 5 talk on my site at
> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/trans.html>. I hope this will make it
> to the Extropy site somewhere, if only to give Mike Lorrey another
> target for his philosophical practice range. :-)
Lee makes a number of good points, but I don't think he reaches a clear
conclusion in favor of Brin-style transparency, as I understand it.
At most Lee points out some benefits of transparency, and I don't think
anyone disagrees that benefits do exist.
The issue of privacy vs transparency is far from a binary choice. It is a
continuum. Everyone adopts a mixture of privacy and transparency in their
daily lives. Few people are comfortable at either end of the spectrum.
Some people are more open and some are more closed.
Further, most people vary their degree of openness depending on who the
other party is. They will be more open with family and friends, less
with strangers. Some are very open with close friends but extremely
private with strangers. Others treat everyone more equally.
My feeling is that, given the wide range of personal desires and choices
on this issue, the best policy for society would be to facilitate
individual choice on this matter. Those who want privacy can have it.
Those who choose openness should not have barriers thrown in their way.
In point of fact, I think our own present-day society does a pretty good
job by this standard. I don't see any urgent need to change the legal
system's policies with regard to privacy.
If Lee or David Brin or others want to advise people to be more
transparent in their personal lives, fine. More power to them. Maybe it
is true that many people can find happiness by living more open lives.
Let people try it and see if they like it that way. This is the kind
of transparent society I would fully endorse, one where transparency is
voluntary and on an individual basis.
The problem arises with those who want to enforce transparency by
forbidding the keeping of secrets. Some advocates (not Lee) seem to
suggest that public cameras ought to be placed in some parts of peoples'
homes, or that businesses should not be able to have private planning
meetings. These proposals take away personal choice and reduce social
diversity.
However I am not too worried, as I think the chances of these proposals
gaining any politically significant degree of popular acceptance are nil.
People are never going to vote to put Big Brother into their own living
rooms.
Ignoring these extremist positions, the goal of a diverse, flexible,
choice oriented society is one we all share. A wide spectrum of personal
choices with regard to transparency and privacy is an important component
of such a society, in my opinion. Let a thousand flowers bloom, let each
person make his own choice about how to live his life, and let advocates
make their cases for why various lifestyle choices are the best. This is
the transparent society I would like to see.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:15 MST