I haven't read the book yet (planning to), but there is this thought I keep thinking about and I've mentioned here a few times, that our choice might be that between privacy and continued progress humanity. There are great benefits to the same technologies that "enable mass surveillance", and I feel this angle is underexplored.
(And yes, every time I mention this I secretly hope someone will argue with me, explaining the reasons to fight for so strong privacy we enjoy now (relatively to all the history of humanity) that are different than just belief in the privacy as a basic human right - an axiom which I don't really recognize).
I'm curious how you think that privacy is stronger now than any other time in history?
While the "small town" / "small group" effect was definitely present in the past, if you ran afoul of said group, you could always leave it (and the stigma) behind. Now the Internet allows people to inspect your history wherever you go. It becomes inescapable. This is something that has never existed in the past (aside from becoming so super-infamous that news travels between disparate groups, I guess).
I'm not sure how easily one could leave a small town in, say, feudal Europe. Most serfs lacked travel rights, and while one could escape from their lord's land and move to a city (depending on the country), the cost was prohibitively high[0].
I meant the "small group" effect. I agree it's more difficult than ever to start over after you fall out with your group, but an ordinary person living ordinary, conforming life enjoys more privacy and more expectation of privacy than before.
I feel like that stigma would, to a large degree, be associated with the identity of "outsider" that you'd acquire in leaving the original group. If that group didn't want you, why would we?
This wouldn't work for me at all. Actually it would put me right into a psychiatric hospital - repeatedly.
I expect it would do that for lots of other folks.
The last little while I've been thinking of buying a car or maybe a motorcycle. For quite a long time I've enjoyed the fine public transit we enjoy here in Vancouver and Portland, but I'd like to go camping in the desert.
The reason I haven't already done so, is that I know from experience that when you drive a car, the police find all manner of reasons to pull you over. The cops don't always have evil intent in doing so; consider that Timothy McVeigh was pulled over for expired registration a few days ago after he bombed the Oklahoma City Federal Building. I expect everyone was getting pulled over back then.
I was appalled just a couple days ago to learn that the Feds have - or maybe they are working on - a nationwide license plate reader database.
Even were I completely law-abiding, drove my car legally, my physical location would be in that database. No matter where I travelled in my car or on my motorbike, my entire path would be in a computer file.
I've thought about that quite a lot; I am simply unable to tolerate such a thing, even today.
By contrast, one does not need a license plate to ride a bicycle. I'm rather out of shape but back in the day I used to ride my bike fifty miles on a regular basis.
I'm not dead certain but I might ride my bike from Portland to Burning Man this year. That's mostly desert, much of it mountainous. To do that wrong could be life-threatening but to do it right would be quite cool.
I lived on a bicycle for 13 months, and then I rode a motorcycle for a few years. Both are great ways to travel, and they do take you a little farther from mainstream society than a car does.
If you're careful, riding a bicycle through the desert and mountains is pretty safe. The most dangerous part are roads with narrow shoulders and lots of truck traffic. You can almost always find a lightly-traveled road to get you where you want to go. You should carry lots of water in the desert, but you should be fine if you run out and don't panic. I never ran out, but I was pretty confident if I did I could just sit still and wait for a passing motorist to share some water.
Motorcycles still have license plates, and I got pulled over more than once for speeding. But there seems less incentive for an officer to try and search a motorcycle than search a car. So you might deal with fewer overzealous police officers on a motorcycle than in a car.
"when you drive a car, the police find all manner of reasons to pull you over."
Over the last 20 years, I've put well over 220k miles in on a variety of cars, and have gotten pulled over exactly four times, all of which were for unarguably justified reasons.
(in fairness, I'm a white dude and they're not gonna pull me for 'driving while black')
The point of Brin's ideas is that the police and the government can (and should) be surveilled by ordinary every day citizens.
We have seen how keeping cameras on police moderates their behaviour. I wonder if that "reverse surveillance" could also moderate things like unjustified stops when one is driving?
>> We have seen how keeping cameras on police moderates their behaviour.
Apparently not in the most recent case in South Carolina where the officer's dash cam was running and didn't stop him from shooting a man eight times in the back, did it?
Also, the camera's are there for the cops sake, not for ours. I welcome having body camera's, but I think you'd be surprised at how many times a cop has justifiable means to use lethal force, and doesn't.
Sure, it helps us keep tabs on them, but I'm pretty sure the actual reality of what they put up with compared to how these situations are portrayed in the media, are going to be eye opening to a lot of people.
Apparently not in the most recent case in South Carolina where the officer's dash cam was running and didn't stop him from shooting a man eight times in the back, did it?
Sure, it's no panacea.
But in San Diego:
Complaints have fallen 40.5% and use of "personal body" force by officers has been reduced by 46.5% and use of pepper spray by 30.5%, according to the report developed by the Police Department for the City Council's Public Safety and Livable Neighborhoods Committee.[1]
And the ACLU tends to think they are on the balance, positive[2].
I think Brin's argument would be that we've tried policing without cameras, maybe it is worth trying it with lots more cameras.
It's worth noting in that case you mentioned above it was mobile phone footage that led to him being charged, not a dash cam[3]. That's an argument for more cameras, controlled by civilians.
>>It's worth noting in that case you mentioned above it was mobile phone footage that led to him being charged, not a dash cam[3].
I do agree on your points, which are all well made.
Do you think he would have been charged had it not been for the civilian video? Or do you think it simply would've taken longer to charge him since they would have to get the video off his dash cam, review it, and then decide whether to take action.
I am very happy that police will often choose not to use lethal force, even if it would be allowed. The point is, however, that had such a thing happened without cameras, proving it (versus an officer's word, which is often treated as Truth in courts) is very hard.
Cameras' purpose is to allow gathering evidence in the (hopefully rare) instances of inexcusable behavior by officers, and to encourage them to do things "by the book" rather than stretching the truth (lying) about what actually happened.
In many countries public transport is now next to impossible with only cash. You need an NFC enabled device. Often, discounts or monthly subscriptions are impossible if you take an anonymous one. Recharging with cash is time consuming at best, and very hard if the machines do not accept bills. I tried, and eventually caved.
Please enjoy your anonymous public transport to the fullest for me. :(
My take is to convince a whole lot of people to swap their cards with each other. That is, you and I would each purchase a $20 card. Say you and I worked at the same company - when we arrived at work, we'd trade cards.
When I got home, I'd trade my card with my neighbor.
That would enable The Man to cut down on his cash handling expenses, which really are quite significant when you handle quite a lot of coin and currency. But it would make a total rat's nest of any attempt to track transit riders by tracking our payment cards.
I was very amused to realise that it was actually cheaper for me to buy a RFID ticket, run it into the debt limit of $1 and then dispose of it at the end of the trip. Talking to the station staff about it they acknowledged that they didn't like it but that it was perfectly within the law to continue doing so because after all it was still a valid ticket. There's probably room for doing a mix network in places where this loophole isn't possible though, even just a scheme when you see another person adding funds to a zero balance card and it becoming custom to swap your empty one for theirs would do the trick for privacy.
Not to change the topic, but I've been thinking about doing the exact same thing with advertising tracking codes (e.g. DoubleClick). CookieSwappers of the World Unite.
I've been puzzling over a Killer App for a little while, but just don't have the headspace to deal with it. Take The Money And Run:
Write a mobile app - or maybe crowdfund a gadget - that would be an always on video camera, or perhaps just an audio recorder with a sometimes- but not always-on camera.
This would be done in such a way that it is simply not possible to erase the recording, not even if law enforcement confiscates your device. The most-straightforward way would be to upload it to a server however law enforcement could take your entire server, or block access to it &c.
Worse who ever operated the server could be subject to prosecution, say for enabling wiretapping. Yes, I know. :-/
However a solution would be for that server to be a Tor Hidden Service. That would make it difficult, maybe impossible to physically locate the server or its admins; it would also make it more difficult to block the communication between the recorder and the server.
Commonly overlooked is that it's not enough simply to operate a hidden service; if someone does grab the actual box, then they've got your filesystem. For this to really work you need a fully-encrypted disk. But then you have the problem that the OS as well as the hidden service require private keys. If you store them right on the box then you lose.
Possibly Trusted Computing would help somewhat. However another way would be for, when the OS boots, it cries out for help in some surreptitious way, say by posting a racy JPEG on imgur. When an admit sees that JPEG show up on Reddit, then he transmits the secret keys to the server.
There is also the problem that, were these recorders always on, then they would record things that anyone would want to be private. Typically we would want whoever possessed the device to choose which recordings to release to the public; however if they were required to do so under a subpeona, again we lose.
So there should be more than one person making the decision. Whoever has a legimate reason to want privacy, as well as someone who can deny a subpeona with complete safety, in principle the server admin.
This outline doesn't scale at all well. I've been puzzling over it for a little while and I can see that it could be made to scale.
But this is the very first time I've written down any of these ideas.
If you can make something of this, More Power To You.
A device that costs money, that you have to carry with you at all times, that you have to have connected to the internet, and you're likely to never use... I get your goal, but I don't think it's practical in the way you're thinking.
There are phone apps which do some of what your suggesting, but leaving them on all the time would mean that you would have to have an unlimited data package and lots of spare batteries.
I did consider that one cannot always get on the Internet, but I didn't mention it in my writeup. The device could upload the recording whenever the Internet was available.
That would leave the problem that the cops know you've got such a gadget, so they prevent you from going to a wifi spot. For this we use the kind of mesh network as was used in the Hong Kong protests a few months ago. I think they didn't write that app themselves, it was already available from the App Store or Google Play.
Most phones have wifi, bluetooth and 4G. If any one of those can connect - somehow - to the Internet then we can upload.
The problem with battery life would be hard to solve on an actual phone but not hard at all to solve on dedicated hardware. A very, very large chunk of your power consumption goes into managing hardware security and virtual memory.
If you had no security at all, and no virtual memory, then you use quite a lot less power. That's quite common with embedded applications, such as TI DPSs running SYSBIOS (previous DSP/BIOS). I have some experience with DSP/BIOS it would not be hard at all to make a device the size of an iPhone that could run for a week or two between recharges.
The device would be a lot more acceptable to most people if it were not plainly visible. Suppose the camera lens could be clipped to your shirt, but the rest of the device is in your pants pocket or your purse, with a bluetooth connection between the two.
I fully understand there are many problems with this concept, but solving these kinds of problems is what engineers actually do to feed their hungry children. :-D
The problem to be solved here, as I understand it, is accessing the recording after someone takes the recording device away from you, and possibly also attempts to delete your recordings.
You don't need to upload to the cloud here. You just need to upload to a storage device that cannot be easily recognized as the upload target for the recorder, and would not typically have probable cause for a search.
These could be attached to the recorder using a wide variety of short-range wireless communications technologies. Maybe your pinky ring has a microSD card under the gaudy cabochon, and connects using IEEE 802.15.6. Maybe you get a parylene-coated implant in your beer belly. Maybe your eyeglasses can store 256 GB. Perhaps the label on your underwear can store more data than just your name. Or one of the keys on your key ring does not actually open any lock.
Maybe the "delete" function in your device's UI also activates a piercing audible alarm that screams "SPOLIATION! SPOLIATION! SOMEONE IS TRYING TO DESTROY MY EVIDENCE!" and the real data-destruction function requires a pre-authorized device to activate.
The device itself would, of course, need a decoy SD card in it somewhere. People tend not to stop looking for something until they find it.
As for the recorder portion, it would have to be plainly visible to be legal in all US jurisdictions. Also, you need something obvious for the bad actor to take, so that he can believe that he has confiscated both your recorder and your recent recordings.
The data are the important parts, if you can give your attorney a recording of the cop illegally seizing your camera, it is a lot easier to get it back.
I'm hip to that but I expect a solution could be found.
The main problem is that it is risky and expensive to operate an exit node. It's not a big deal to have an internal node.
I expect such an app would be quite popular; if one were able to calculate how much server capacity was required for each recorder, then a retail price could be found that would keep the network within capacity.
Another possibility is that while I assert it would be best to always be recording, sometimes it would be acceptable to do so in low fidelity.
High fidelity audio these days is quite compact.
Had better audio recording been present at JFK's assassination, there would be no doubt as to who fired the shots. Today's Ogg Vorbis or MP3 would be great for that; back then they were using reel-to-reel recorders on police car radios.
Perhaps an accelerometer would help. If nothing bad is happening one wouldn't expect there to be much acceleration. But if you hear a scream or a gunshot, even if you don't aim your phone at it you are startled so that you jump up, look around or maybe even run away. At that point the app would increase its video fidelity - or use less compression.
Most of the time it would use high compression, low resolution or monochrome.
This kind of video doesn't really need to be in color. 8-bit grayscale NTSC video his highly compressible
I can't go into a whole lot of detail as it is late, I am tired and I have lots of work to do.
But more or less I point out to every cop I come across, that while I do know that there are some bad cops, there are bad people everywhere. It is wrong to hate the police despite that there have been lots of officers who have murdered innocent, defenseless people.
I don't judge individuals by the behaviors of other people. Recall what MLK said about "the content of our character". For me, I don't judge someone by the color of their clothes or whether they have a shiny badge affixed to them.
I then point out that I have quite a profoundly serious illness: Bipolar-Type Schizoaffective Disorder, and that it is much like being Manic-Depressive and Schizophrenic at the same time.
Being crazy gives me lots of real-world experience with law enforcement. Consider that I was once hospitalized involuntarily for ten solid days because I told some shrink that I planned to "go camping in the desert". See, I was completely unaware that in Reno, when one intends to "go camping in the desert", one intends to commit suicide.
It didn't help to point out that I had the Boy Scout Wilderness Survival Merit Badge, nor that I had camped in the desert just the night before.
I was once beaten unconscious by two cops by having my skull slammed repeatedly into concrete. When I regained consciousness three days later, while I could correctly visualize the spelling of my own name when I thought about it, I was incapable of spelling it when I attempted to write it on paper with a pencil.
You'd think that would make me hate all police officers but no, I don't even hate the two cops who assaulted me with a deadly weapon.
However, I do feel that they should be spending some time behind bars.
On the other hand there have been plenty of times that police officers have saved my very life. The ONLY time I ever saw a cop so much as set foot on the Caltech campus was when a Pasadena Police Department officer came to save me from the Caltech campus security guards who beat the living crap out of me then hurled me bodily down a flight of stairs.
Finally I write down the URL for "Living with Schizoaffective Disorder" then point out that "I wrote it in part to help people like you help people like me".
Finally, I offer to shake their hand. Cops aren't used to members of the public offering to shake their hand. Quite commonly they are visibly moved by my simple gesture.
Certainly, but it also seems like some local police departments have institutionalized misconduct. And I don't think it's totally unreasonable to to expect cops to be significantly better than average people.
There's a Illinois State Trooper that lives in my neighborhood. He drives his work vehicle home and ALWAYS parks it illegally. There's a sign saying "no parking" with an arrow pointing right at where he put his car.
Of course he's never ticketed. But this grates me every time I walk by. He is entrusted with enforcing our laws, but can't be arsed to follow them every single night when he parks.
It is a huge erosion of trust in their institution.
This is the problem along with the parent's comments. They literally are a different class of citizen. Does anybody actually think another cop would see this and write the state trooper a ticket? That the state trooper would have to go to his courthouse and pay a fine? It doesn't happen.
At most, he'd be asked to move it. But until then he gets privileges us lower citizens don't have.
None if this is legal advice, and quite likely not all of of it would work. It's possiblpe that someone who thinks so little of obeying the law would be willing to hassle you personally constantly for such behavior.
Most of these ideas would be stupid, ineffective, or perhaps illegal, but my point is that you might indeed be able to creatively find a way to make sure that the trooper's illegal actions (off duty!)
- Gather evidence. Take pictures every day that he does it.
- Ask him nicely to park legally. Point out that his flagrant disregard for the law erodes everyone's respect for his profession.
- Ask your local police to ticket him personally. They might not do it, but it can't hurt to ask.
- Write to his boss. Write to the governor, call everyone up his chain of command. Point out the respect erosion issue, and ask that police be held to the same laws that they enforce.
- Sue him on behalf of citizens of the city when you see him doing it. I'm sure judges would feel really happy about police officers who flaunt the law for personal benefit.
- Campaign for a local (city/county) law that allows citizens to enforce parking laws (citations, towing, car boot) on any government-owned vehicle that is parked illegally. Make this your public example. (Of course, good luck actually doing that, but the media publicity might shame him?)
- If the place he parks is a "no parking" area due to things like fire hydrants, consider talking to the local fire department.
- Try to alert an impersonal bureaucracy that will treat his illegal parking as something tow-able or otherwise something they can escalate as part of their job.
- Call or write his boss every time you see him do it. Report it by vehicle number.
- Buy two extremely beat up cars and park them on both sides of his vehicle. (That might not be legal, now that I think about it.)
- Propose a local ordinance to give you permission to install a concrete or otherwise similarly heavy / ugly public art work directly next to his car in such a way that it shames him, or makes it really inconvenient to park there.
Do you realize that in some jurisdictions, you can write out a complaint and summons for that parking violation? If it is a civil offense, you don't need to be an agent of the state to commence the action.
Take photographs of the car, the sign, and submit the paperwork at the local municipal court. Give the summons to another adult to serve upon the state at police headquarters. You might need to do some research the first time around, but after that, you can ticket that car again every time you walk past it instead of silently fuming at the double standard.
Cops have to obey the law, too. If they won't obey it and enforce it against each other, that leaves it to the rest of us.
In Portland, a total of four PPB officers murdered two mentally ill men in cold blood. They were not prosecuted; the grand jury and PPB internal affairs cleared them.
The family of one of the victims sued and won $2M. I don't clearly recall whether it was a jury verdict or a settlement.
In the other case I don't think there was a lawsuit however the federal government found that the PPB wasn't properly trained to deal with the mentally ill. My own more-recent experience that the PPB is quite good, for example I'd see someone going totally bananas at the Portland Rescue Mission and the cops would show right up, then be completely reasonable, pleasant and polite.
On the other hand, the Santa Cruz Police Department is quite oppressive to the homeless and mentally ill. That led to the Occupy Santa Cruz movement raising quite a lot of Hell, but with the eventual result that things got quite a lot better for the homeless and quite a lot worse for the cops.
edit: s/better/worse/
I hasten to point out that the vast majority of police officers and sheriff's deputies, I expect FBI agents as well, hate bad cops with a passion. The problem is "The Thin Blue Line"; their culture forbids them criticizing their fellow officers.
But they are quick to criticize bad cops in other jurisdictions. Thus when I told a Reno deputy about the OHSU campus cops who beat me up, he got furiously angry, wanted to help me bring them to justice, but I - politely - refused his offer. He has a lot of work to do, I want to take care of that myself
I strongly support organized labor however I do not support what Police Unions commonly do.
For example a month or two ago, some New York City cop shot and killed a man for no apparent reason. Concerned that he might lose his job, he rang up his Union Steward on his phone.
It was four solid minutes before he looked into whether he might render first aid for the guy he had just shot.
It is very commonly the case that when a law enforcement officer commits a really odious crime, his union will come to his aid.
You'd think that wouldn't happen but it does.
So yes I expect that were internal affairs investigations handled as you suggest, it would have a profoundly positive effect. But it would be hard to implement it, as the unions for the bad cops would not agree to it.
Perhaps a way to handle it would be a state ballot proposition. It might be more appealing to the unions were "police force B" chosen totally at random whenever such an investigation was called for.
Around here, to get hired as a police officer or a deputy, one has to pass quite a rigorous background check.
I once had a girlfriend who described herself as "a former law enforcement officer". She never called herself a "police officer" or a "sheriff's deputy", however she was quite expert at handling firearms.
I eventually concluded that she had been a Cadet for the Sheriff, that is, a trainee. The Cadets assist with various law enforcement work but they never actually carry out the actual enforcement.
I figure that someone clued in to that she was mentally ill.
Welcome to XXI century, it's becoming harder and harder to tell hallucinations from reality apart. Hell, nowadays you can't call paranoid someone thinking government is watching everything, because he's actually right.
Mental illness is cultural in nature, in that we can't really say that schizophrenia in the United States is quite the same thing as schizophrenia in, say, West Africa.
Consider that at one time it was quite common for the mentally ill to consider themselves to be the emperor of france, or at least some manner of royalty.
Now I myself - not at the moment, but not long ago at all - was completely convinced that I was a clandestine operative for the United States Marine Corps Joint Forces Cyber Command.
How I arrived at that conclusion is a little hard to explain, however I have lots of completely rational explanations, for example I really did apply to the USAF Cyber Command when it was announced at Slashdot back in 2008.
There are other little dots here and there. When you see a bunch of dots on a printed page, do you see a picture?
Among the natures of psychosis, is that I see connections that most people don't. You'd connect the dots and you'd see a smiley face or a bumblebee.
I'd connect the dots and I'd see myself as James Bond.
Thank you for elaborating on the topic. I didn't mean to snark on mental illnesses - it just occurred to me that a lot of things that are classically associated with delusions are becoming the part of reality, so it's only going to get harder to determine what is true and what is just imagination.
I don't judge individuals by the behaviors of other people.
You try not to, but ultimately it's impossible to enter in to an interaction with another person with a completely blank slate. Our previous interactions with people affect how we perceive the world around us. If a subset of people are found to be murderers then the risk of meeting someone in that set who isn't a murderer decreases - to use an ad absurdum example, if there are 1,000,000 police officers and 999,999 of them are murderers, you wouldn't meet the last one thinking "I really ought to give him the benefit of the doubt."
At the moment, the number of police officers who have killed innocent people is still absolutely tiny, so the risk of being killed by one is also tiny, and to that end we should still see police officers as useful, helpful members of society who aren't going to murder us. But also, rationally speaking, the police should welcome every technology that makes people trust them, and that includes cameras that record them rather than us.
"At the moment, the number of police officers who have killed innocent people is still absolutely tiny"
There is no way to verify your claim. In my own antidotal
world, I have seen cops ruin people's lives by harassment, and revenue collection!
There are two statements made by Eric Holder's Justice Department that didn't get the traction I felt they needed:
“Local authorities consistently approached law enforcement not as a means for protecting public safety, but as a way of generating revenue,” Holder said
Officers in Ferguson “routinely violate the Fourth Amendment,” Holder said, and stop citizens without reasonable suspicion and then use unreasonable force against them. Incidents often “blatantly cross the line,” he said.
This investigation was specific to Ferguson, Missouri, but I have a feeling they are systemic problems in many towns and cities across America.
I have no way if proving my own personal suspicions about the average Cop, in the average police department, but I don't trust them anymore. I know I have been pulled over for no reason. I have been ticketed for incidents I honestly didn't
think I committed. I'm a white dude living in a wealthy community; I often wonder how minorites are treated in other parts of the country?
(I have no answers to the injustices I see, other than arming your vechicle, and person with a video cam. The problem I see now is most cops will be on the lookout for any recording
devise.)
I once read an article which reported a real police officer's take on Miami Vice.
In the TV show, the drug cop fires his gun at least once each episode. That would lead the show's fans to expect that most law enforcement officers use their service pistols at least once per week, if not every single day.
In reality, most cops fire their guns at most once during their entire lives. That is, fire them at a suspect and not at a practice target.
I expect they draw their guns a fair amount, but those who understand gun safety know very well that one never points a gun at another human being unless one fully intends to kill them.
Once, one of my father's enlisted men damn near shot his own foot off when he was verifying that his pistol really was unloaded. He followed the US Navy's documented procedure for unloading his gun, the very last step being to pull the trigger.
> those who understand gun safety know very well that one never points a gun at another human being unless one fully intends to kill them.
This was one of the biggest criticisms I heard[1][2] (and raised) regarding the protests in Ferguson. The police officers had their weapons constantly trained on the protesters, including sniper rifles and other unnecessarily large weapons. It really sent a bad message, that they were seemingly ready to kill anyone who stepped one foot over the line they laid down. Whether or not this was actually true, it certainly seemed that way.
See my first comment in this thread; that signaled very clearly they were willing to kill them, although nothing about intending (and indeed they didn't). See also a lot of the bad behavior after the Boston Marathon bombing in the futile Watertown search, lots of contemporary pictures, plus there's a recent report that's well discussed here that tells us just how badly managed it all was: http://weaponsman.com/?p=21830
but those who understand gun safety know very well that one never points a gun at another human being unless one fully intends to kill them
Nope, Rule 2 is "Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy." (Emphasis added.) Big difference between "fully intends" and willing.
Roughly when did the Navy incident happen? As of late, like the last couple or so decades, I've read that the firearm training has really been shortchanged. It was very different when my father started at Great Lakes before being tapped for OCS.
I think it was in 1973 or 1974. My father had a rotating duty to help guard the main gate at Concord Naval Weapons Station in the east San Francisco Bay. That is every couple weeks he would supervise the men in the guardhouse.
But I'm increasingly coming around to think that it might make sense to explore his model more.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society