tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post1683268842011072637..comments2008-03-12T14:42:46.255-07:00bwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07541279438184352860noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post-9671502896063405572008-03-12T14:42:00.000-07:002008-03-12T14:42:00.000-07:00I dont know if you read the same article as I did, but from the David Brin article:<BR/><BR/><B>"Almost monthly, we hear of some angry cop arresting a citizen on trumped "privacy violations," for using a cellphone camera or MP3 recorder to capture an interaction with authority. And each month, judges toss the arrests, forcing police to apologize. Every time. So much for those power exponents. <BR/><BR/>Schneier even cites this trend, swerving his essay at the end, from doubt into a paean for "sousveillance" or citizens shining light upward upon the mighty. <BR/><BR/>Or ... a transparent society."</B><BR/><BR/>Its true, that dissimilarity of power exist, but we allways find the ways to change that again and again.Lobo7922http://www.blogger.com/profile/00893503533385321558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post-71901252697387285362008-03-12T11:46:00.000-07:002008-03-12T11:46:00.000-07:00You will notice that David Brin's response in Wired is a song and dance where he fails to address Schneier's dissimilarity of power issue at all. The problem is that the dissimilarity of power issue is the fundamental flaw in Brin's open society, which means he must respond to it in order to maintain the credibility of his open society idea.kurthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02101147267959016924noreply@blogger.com