Most Helpful Customer Reviews
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Good book, even though I did not agree with it, June 8, 2005
This review is from: The Open Society Paradox: Why the Twenty-First Century Calls for More Openness--Not Less (Hardcover)
This book was recommended to me by a guest speaker I had in my Technology/Terrorism/National Security Law class.
It was well written, and well argued. One of his points seemed to be that people get privacy and anonymity mixed up. I agree with this. People do get this mixed up, anyone who thinks there websurfing is truly private is mistaken, anyone can see you walking down the street. Its because people do not know you that makes you think you are granted privacy, when really you are just anonymous.... I did not agree with him though that we need more openess. I would prefer to have more liberty and actual privacy even if it meant more terrorist attacks or whatever is the fear of the day. The data collection industry is very scary and is a serious threat to everyone's privacy. For the opposite side of the coin read "No Place to Hide" by Robert O'Hara. I am not done with this one yet (another recommendation by the above person) but I agree with his premise alot more, so far.
Overall though I would agree this is well done book, that makes you think about the issue. I would recommend it.
Scott
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Interesting, But I'm Not Convinced, May 16, 2005
This review is from: The Open Society Paradox: Why the Twenty-First Century Calls for More Openness--Not Less (Hardcover)
I picked up this book intrigued by the title. There is no question in my mind that the balance of openness vs. security is a major question of the time. Today we are seeing more and more people calling for ever increasing security. The paper yesterday said that a new requirement for a drivers license will be to present four forms of ID. Where is a sixteen year old supposed to get four forms of ID?
There is a big flack about issuing drivers licenses to illegal migrant workers from Mexico. Do these people say that we want these people driving without a license. A drivers license is (perhaps was is a better word) supposed to be proof only that the person understands the little driving book. That's good if someone is to drive a car.
This book recognizes the problem of more government control, but says that the constitutional protections are sufficient to say that the Government won't run amuck. In view of the Patriot's Act and the Drug laws that says the carrying of 'significant' amounts of cash is presumptive of drug purchasing intent, I'm not so sure.
The author also puts his faith in an ID card with embedded biometric data. I have one of those. It was issued by the passport people and at selected airports a kiosk would let me come into the country without having to stand in the passport line. After 9/11 they stopped using these machines. Evidently the Government decided that measuring the biometrics of my hand was less secure than having an immigration person ask me a few questions.
A very interesting contribution to the story of our time, I'm just not quite convinced yet.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Freedom, Security, the rule of Law AND Trust in our leaders, January 9, 2009
With 911 as its backdrop, this author takes "a difficult bull by the horns" and attempts to wrestle it to the ground by answering in a novel way one of the central questions of our time: How in an open society, do we protect ourselves from those who would use our freedoms against us to do us harm? Most impressively is the fact that the book examines how this issue has been deal with since the nation's founding and comes to a rather startlingly counterintuitive conclusion: that the answer lies in not less openness, but in more.
The theme of his basic argument is that in a free society, the question of the best balance between freedom and security is always paramount. Open societies are vulnerable to those who would bore their way into our society and use our freedoms against us. And thus the choice often boils down to one of restricting freedoms in order to increase security. The trick of course is finding the proper balance between the two. Mr. Bailey's main thesis, which is cogently presented, is that with new technologies, (the internet, satellites, cell phones, etc.) by making all of the public more open to government, it is then much more difficult for our enemies to hide in the shadows. And indeed it may be so.
Although his historical analysis suggests another concern equal to that of the terrorist's threat, Mr. Bailey consistently sees only one side of this avowedly two-sided problem. Taking an historical perspective, and in my view misinterpreting the main concern of the founding fathers, Mr. Bailey very quickly "zero-ins" on new technologies as the salvation of last resort. While in no way minimizing the threat of terrorism, or the important of new technologies, it still remains true that in the eyes of our founding fathers, a concern on par with this one was that of having confidence that our leaders would not use the specter of "external threats" as a "ruse" and a bogeyman to strip away our freedoms. This concern of theirs remains ever present.
On this very important issue the author's seems to have dropped the ball. He simply waves his hand at this critical issue, and thus at least in this reader's view, leaves the book only half done. When he rather incongruously comes down solidly on the side of the Patriot Act and other intrusive measures, without giving even a nod to the primary fears raised by the founding fathers, in my mind, his analysis raises more questions than it answers. Clearly our founders primary concern was that untrustworthy leaders would gain power through seeing the enormous political benefits of "playing the security card." And in light of the current administration's excesses, in my view, the author did not explore this important theme sufficiently enough.
Put simply, in order to find the correct balance between security and freedom, we must first have leaders we can trust; leaders who are themselves open and have the best interests of the country in mind. Rather than belabor the point, I think it is self-evident that our current leaders, both in the legislative and the executive, were less than trustworthy. In my view this book was not the time to "skate" pass this very important issue. What a missed opportunity!
Three Stars
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
