Let's be clear: we need governments to be transparent because of the power differential between governments and individuals.

Bruce Schneier said it well [1]:

"All aspects of government work best when the relative power between the governors and the governed remains as small as possible -- when liberty is high and control is low.

Forced openness in government reduces the relative power differential between the two, and is generally good. Forced openness in laypeople increases the relative power differential, and is generally bad."

[1] http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/03/privacy_and_po...

Your same argument can be applied to the power differential between modern corporations (often amoral agents) and individuals.

Corporations have nothing to do with morals. It is business, not personal.

The film's assessment is effected via the diagnostic criteria in the DSM-IV; Robert Hare, a University of British Columbia psychology professor and a consultant to the FBI, compares the profile of the contemporary profitable business corporation to that of a clinically-diagnosed psychopath. The documentary concentrates mostly upon North American corporations, especially those of the United States.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Corporati...

I think that is the point webelos was making.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amoral

Bruce spoke about the liberty vs. control dimension at CFP in 2005 in Seattle. David Brin had been on the opening panel giving his take on the transparent society so it was a great compare-and-contrast.

Can you recall any of Brin's ideas on the subject?

(It's funny since I just started reading Sundiver the other day!)

Pretty much what he said in his book [1]: that the state won't allow any privacy in the future and so the only solution is to require a two-way transparency. There are some good insights here but in the end it ignores the power dynamics (state and corporate power is so much greater than individual citizens', and there's so much privilege for the wealthy and tech-savvy , that transparency's value applies asymmetrically) and presupposes a choice between two bad options.

The book continues to be very influential and so is worth reading -- just take it with a grain of salt, remembering that he's writing as a wealthyish white guy who's never had to face unpleasant consequences from being on the receiving end of transparency.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society

It's extra annoying that this was referred to as the "nerd ideology" by Mr. Lanier. Anyone with even a cursory understanding of geek culture knows that while it advocates institutional transparency, it also advocates personal privacy.

That article was nothing but link bait.

As soon as I saw the headline submitted to HN, I knew that its purpose and that I should not click it.

Lanier is well-known for being a bad writer (and convoluted thinker) who somehow still manages to get published.

He is turning into the go-to quote machine for scaremongers. He is legitimately a hacker and yet is guaranteed to hold opinions that provide vague justification for the most ignorant fears about the internet. He also sees everything as a recapitulation of his own disillusionment with 1990s cyber-ideologies; he doesn't acknowledge that there are any other stories to tell.

I used to enjoy the exercise of thinking about Lanier's contrary positions, but then I saw him comparing Wikipedia to Stalinism in the documentary "Truth in Numbers?" It's a point he makes at length in his new book You Are Not A Gadget. Uh yeah, ok, whatever, dude.

His function is now to demonstrate what side of an issue to not be on.

The argument is flipped in a fascist context. Hint: look around.