The question is not whether the transparent society is inherently good or free. The question is, which is more compatible with freedom:
- total surveillance, of everybody by everybody
- surveillance only by authorities, of the rest of us
The book's premise is that these will be the only choices. The premise may not be correct. But if you start from it, clearly total transparency is better than the alternative.
> But if you start from it, clearly total transparency is better than the alternative.
Maybe, but that fact is nearly meaningless. Nobody will have anything like freedom in such a world, regardless of which way it works. Saying that one is better than the other is like saying that this deadly toxin is marginally less effective than that deadly toxin. It's a distinction without a meaningful difference.
You should read the book. I don't know that I buy the premise either, but I do think that he successfully argues that surveillance does not necessarily preclude freedom.
- total surveillance, of everybody by everybody
- surveillance only by authorities, of the rest of us
The book's premise is that these will be the only choices. The premise may not be correct. But if you start from it, clearly total transparency is better than the alternative.