Rating: 
Summary: Want to get enlightened and scared at the same time?
Review: From time to time a work comes along that is totally separate, above, from the works of all other authors at the time of release. This is such a work. It goes on my shelf of honor (and frequent re-reading) between Guns,Germs,&Steel and Diamond Age, once removed from Shockwave Rider. Would that our leaders could read it and understand it.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting but disorganized
Review: I bought the book after reading about it in _New Scientist_ (British science journal). Brin's ideas are fascinating but the book could use some serious editing. I'd still recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: Almost Persuasive, But...
Review: I read Brin's book while working on my doctoral thesis, which contains a reference to the Nuremberg Files debate and the attendant controversies. My questions for the author are these. One, gay people and women value our specific rights to privacy very highly indeed,but you haven't dealt with the implications of surrendering that right. Two, the Nuremberg Files outcome was that successive ISPs closed down the offending website, despite sporadic mirrorsite resurrections. I contend that example demonstrates that Brin's call for cyberspace as a public sphere that promotes accountability is a noble objective, but the reality is that commercial and military interests already affect the scope of online speech. That may mean accountability is already impaired, but it also means that privacy may be salvageable. However, this is a meticulously researched piece of scholarship, and the author has made a noteworthy contribution to debates on the political and social uses of cyberspace. If there were awards for such constructive contributions,I contend this book would be at the top of the list.
Rating:
Summary: An interesting thesis, but a difficult read
Review: I really enjoy David Brin's novels and I am very interested in modern society and the technological changes we're experiencing, which is why this book appeals to me. I think Brin does an excellent job of presenting both sides of the argument, even conceding points to the "opposing" side of his thesis. This lends a lot of credibility to his arguments. He provides many many examples and illustrations which I find very interesting. He includes both historical and current examples which present a range of practical and philosophical perspectives. It's clear he spent a lot of time doing research to find these examples. That said, my only complaint is that the style of writing is a bit cumbersome. It's not Brin's extensive vocabulary (which is refreshing and challenging), but rather his tendency to continually refer to other chapters as support for the current argument. The organization of the book is good and speaks for itself. The author should not be compelled to direct the reader to other sections. Specifically, the hypertext-like references are disruptive to the flow of the argument. If such asides are helpful for some readers, perhaps footnotes would have served the same purpose without creating so many parenthetical interruptions. All in all this is a topic I like to think about, and the substance of Brin's thesis is quite valuable.
Rating:
Summary: A very important book
Review: I think this is a very important contribution to the debate over privacy, encryption, and information technology. Brin makes some very interesting points that seem obvious once you think about them but get lost in the mainstream debates. For example, if strong cryptography were the norm, who would benefit more: the private citizen who doesn't want Big Brother looking into his bedroom, or the large corporation that doesn't want the public to find out about dangerous practices they're engaged in? Also, no matter how strong cryptography is, it can't protect against hi-tech spy devices looking over your shoulder as you type, and consider who can afford to use these things? Not the average citizen who wants to spy on tobacco companies... I hope that any time a debate arises between the government, privacy advocates, and any other interested parties, the issue of accountability and the other points that Brin brings up will now be on the table.
Rating:
Summary: Important, flawed, nearly as readable as his sci-fi
Review: Note: I reviewed the book in draft form. Based primarily on rampant, uncontrolled growth in visual surveillance, Brin argues that the technological imperative is irresistible; and that privacy protections are futile. He believes that privacy can only be sustained by focussing instead on freedom of information for everyone: to achieve privacy, rely on freedom, not secrecy. Brin's argument can be most succinctly expressed as a question-answer pair: Q: Who will keep a watch on the watchers? A: The watched. His antidote is ubiquitous openness, with the powerful just as subject to visual and data surveillance as everyone else. Policemen will be judged by the viewers who, on the Internet, watch them watching others. Brin's argument is based on the premise that the watchers will not exercise political power in order to preclude others from watching them. The history of societies suggests that there have always been uneven distributions of power, and that the powerful have had incentives, and in most cases the ability, to exercise their power, and to resist diminution of their power. It would appear that Brin's transparent society can only be achieved if the patterns repeated across millenia of human experience are able to be overturned in short order. So his argument is undermined by the implicit presumptions that the less powerful are more powerful than the more powerful, that no-one will succeed in establishing enclaves of privilege, and that the actions of all will really be able to be monitored by all. Brin's counter-argument (private communication, 30 June 1998) is that the powerful will be only as successful in avoiding observation as they already are in resisting privacy laws that offend their own interests.
Rating:
Summary: Highly Topical, Particularly after 9-11-01
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Highly Topical, Particularly after 9-11-01
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Hard to accept, but he may be right
Review: The entire book is basically one giant argument: That in order to be safe and maintain some form of privacy, we have to in fact give it up and become an open society.
If we try to preserve our privacy through laws and such, he says, then we fall into the trap of who watches the watchers, because to some degree law enforcement and businesses will need access to private information.
His ideal society, that he puts forth, is one where all information is available, with this caveat - that none of it open to just any priviledged group. So, though the police may be able to see that you're standing on the corner, you can see them sitting at their desk. While someone might know you read some newsgroup, you'll know which ones they read.
He sees personal accountability, through openness, to be a great regulator of behaviour. Before I read this book, if someone suggested this to me, I'd call them crazy. But after reading his arguments, and considering the reasons why I'm an open-source software proponent, I find myself considering that Brin may be right to a degree.
Rating:
Summary: Hard to accept, but he may be right
Review: The entire book is basically one giant argument: That in order to be safe and maintain some form of privacy, we have to in fact give it up and become an open society.
If we try to preserve our privacy through laws and such, he says, then we fall into the trap of who watches the watchers, because to some degree law enforcement and businesses will need access to private information.
His ideal society, that he puts forth, is one where all information is available, with this caveat - that none of it open to just any priviledged group. So, though the police may be able to see that you're standing on the corner, you can see them sitting at their desk. While someone might know you read some newsgroup, you'll know which ones they read.
He sees personal accountability, through openness, to be a great regulator of behaviour. Before I read this book, if someone suggested this to me, I'd call them crazy. But after reading his arguments, and considering the reasons why I'm an open-source software proponent, I find myself considering that Brin may be right to a degree.
| 
