David Brin is a renowned futurist whose 1998 nonfiction book, The Transparent Society, is arguably the most influential examination off technology’s impact on privacy and freedom. Mr. Brin is also well-known for his 1989 sci-fi thriller, Earth – which foreshadowed global warming, cyberwarfare and the world wide web.

In a recent interview with GlobalPOV, Mr. Brin shared his thoughts about security, privacy, technology, and post September 11 attitudes.

GlobalPOV: How would you describe the national security vs. privacy discussion?
DB: Following America's worst single day of violent death in this century, pundits have engaged in a relentless tag-team shouting match. Security experts call for new government powers and tighter restrictions, while civil libertarians shout back that we should courageously accept risk in order to prevent "Big Brother" from peering into our lives. While they jostle for air time, both groups are foisting some rather unsavory shared assumptions. The worst of these is the notion of a ‘tradeoff’ between two things we desperately need. I see no evidence that any such tradeoff is necessary.

GlobalPOV: How would you propose making this discussion more productive?
DB: We must start by demanding that both sides move away from positions that are simplistic and self-serving. The Security community, culminating in Attorney General John Ashcroft, must recognize that we will not give them sweeping new powers of vision without demanding compensating powers of accountability and supervision. I have no objection to our guard dog seeing better – providing common citizens get a better choke chain, to remind the creature he’s a dog, not a wolf.

Notice this is the one thing that Ashcroft has not offered. Closer citizen scrutiny and supervision of his forces, to make sure they behave well with these new powers. It’s not his job to offer. It is our job to demand it.

On the civil-libertarian/privacy-advocate side, I’d like to see people move beyond a simplistic/reflexive wish to stop other people from knowing things – policing the contents of other peoples’ brains. It’s a nasty impulse, that has common roots with censorship. Some info-restrictions are necessary – without some privacy we can’t be human – but any time you say that someone should not be allowed to know, you face at least some burden of proof! Restrictions should have some basis – like eliminating real or potential harm.

The kind of privacy we need, first and foremost, is the ability to prevent others from harming ourselves and our families. So let’s start pragmatically, protecting children, psych records, passwords… the stuff that can really hurt people… and stop obsessing on some ideal of total anonymity.

GlobalPOV: One of your recent futurist essays – The Value and Empowerment of Common Citizens in an Age of Danger – points to September 11 as evidence that average citizens are ultimately our most powerful line of defense.
DB: Yes – look at all the cameras and cell phones... a gazillion of them in private hands... that documented everything on 9/11 far more accurately and with quicker response times than CNN or all the official and corporate agencies combined. Just another example of how astonishing powers of vision and information are expanding, almost exponentially, into the hands of common people.

There are some great examples:

• Most of the video we saw on 9/11 was taken by private citizens, a potentially crucial element in future emergencies.
• Private cell phones spread word quicker than official media.
• Swarms of volunteers descended on the disaster sites. Overwhelmed local officials quickly dropped their everyday concerns about liability or professional status, in order to use all willing hands.
• As rumors, hoaxes and conspiracy theories spread, the role of debunking falsehoods fell almost entirely on private web sites. (See footnote.)
• Most important of all - the sole actions taken that day to effectively thwart terror were achieved by individuals aboard United Airlines Flight 93, armed with intelligence and communication tools - and a mandate - completely outside official channels.

GlobalPOV: So technology is aiding this “empowerment of the citizenry”?
DB: Yes – all of these technologies, as well as many others too numerous to mention here, have entered the pipeline. Rather than diminishing the role of the individual, advances in technology seem to be rapidly empowering average citizens, even as professional cynics forecast freedom's demise.

Government and industry can either encourage or thwart them for a short time. Privacy-panic may result in Luddite laws that hinder some bits - like instant face recognition - for a couple of years. But that's it. The genie will get out, and soon common citizens all over the world will be empowered with exponentiated vision. Empowered to be part of the posse.

This may be hard to credit, or even to perceive. Throughout the 20th Century, the trend in our culture was monotonic, toward ever-increasing reliance on protection and coddling by institutions, formally deliberated procedures and official hired guns... none of which availed us at all on September Eleventh. Rather, events that day seem to suggest a reversal, toward the older notion of a confident, self-reliant citizenry.

GlobalPOV: One of the assumptions that you often warn about is what you identify as the “zero-sum tradeoff between safety and freedom.” Could you elaborate on why you disagree with this popular dichotomy?
DB: In The Transparent Society I talk about how the very notion of a freedom/security tradeoff is rather dismal and loathsome. Moreover, it is disproved every day by this society of people who are (even after 9/11) simultaneously both safer and more free than any of their ancestors could imagine. Indeed, the two aims appear to prosper hand in hand.

GlobalPOV: So you disagree that there is a natural tradeoff even when it comes to national security needs?
DB: Oh, there’s a limit to every position’s validity. My “no tradeoffs!” position is an oversimplification, polemically aimed at demolishing a really stupid but common assumption. But of course there will be times when choices have to be made, in and among the details. A jarring example is what to do about those prisoners the Army is keeping in Guantanamo Bay. Are they criminals? If so they deserve lawyers. Are they prisoners of war? Then they deserve Red Cross visits. Are they human beings with SOME kind of rights? And yet, restoring their communications with the outside world may increase some hazards.

What’s needed is a level of supervision that constantly asks these questions. Something outside of the regular chain of command.

GlobalPOV: Do you have any concerns about the possible implications of the Homeland Defense initiatives?
DB: I do not perceive Big Brother arising out of improving the capabilities of government to see.

I perceive Big Brother arising out of an American people – either out of fear or laziness – neglecting our capabilities to supervise and look back at our hired professionals. What matters, in the long run, is OUR ability to see.

GlobalPOV: What will the concept of privacy look like in the future that you imagine?
DB: We’ll have some privacy. Human beings need it, simply to stay human. Intimacies and little secrets.

But only a fool will stake anything important on a particular secret STAYING secret more than a few years at a stretch. Technologies are changing too fast, flying microcameras and such. We’re going to have to redefine privacy for a new era, and live mostly honest lives, since most things will eventually leak out.

We’ll also have to keep on growing more tolerant of each others’ eccentricities – a trend that’s already been going on as we learn not to throw rocks inside glass houses.

The main thing is to protect freedom. A free people will vote themselves some privacy… however it’s defined in the future. A free people will WANT some. So freedom comes first.

And to stay free, we need to be able to see.

• Respond on the Message Board
• Back to Previous Page