Customer Reviews

The Open Society Paradox: Why the Twenty-First Century Calls for More Openness--Not Less

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

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

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.

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

The book is enlightening. Many people feel that we have to choose between freedom and security for our future. The author argues that we can have both - freedom and security. The author calls this "The Open Society Paradox."

The driver's license is the identifying card that almost everyone uses to exist and navigate in our society. The driver's license is the ticket to acceptability in our society. Bailey explains that getting a paper driver's license is too easy and therefore it is too easy to switch identities.

The author argues for a secure biometric national ID card. He calls this the technologies of openness. He downplays the severe loss of privacy that this would cause. Bailey believes that with this secure national ID card we can be both free and secure. I do not think that he makes his case. He believes that giving up one's privacy does not endanger one's freedom. He is wrong about this. He says openness is coming and we can not stop it.

Political Issues (C-Span 354/1)

The Open Society Paradox is a refreshing approach to the staid privacy / security debate that we too often hear in this country. Bailey's argument that instead of more security or more privacy, we need more openness, is a more realistic approach to the direction our technologically-oriented society is headed. Greater security only ends up restricting our freedoms; we saw this at the conventions in DC and Boston when the cities were shut down with road blocks and random searches. At the same time, protecting privacy and anonymity when terrorists live in our country makes it impossible for the government to serve the common defense; when everyone is anonymous, everyone is a potential terrorist. Bailey takes on both the Bush administration and their penchant for too much secrecy and the privacy movement who argue for greater anonymity without providing any solutions to the problem of terrorism. While his vision of the future may be too optimistic for some, his description of a world with a million eyes watching one another is right in line with the proliferation of surveillance cameras and camera phones. The question is whether a million eyes can use the mass commoditization of surveillance to keep Big Brother in check. The Open Society Paradox makes a strong case that it can.

Bailey has distilled the issues of privacy and security in the 21st century into a very readable and informative work! I highly recommend The Open Society Paradox to scholars, policy makers, and any citizen concerned with the security of our nation and world. This book offers a fresh perspective on privacy and openness that is sure to initiate constructive debate on what may become the most shaping issue of our century.

Read this book!!

Post 9/11, we have strong advocates for security at all costs. Others insist on blindly protecting our privacy, even at the expense of security. Both sides have valid points. Yet no one has come forward with a way to resolve these polarizing issues--until now.

I highly recommend Dennis Bailey's The Open Society Paradox. For the first time, someone has taken a thought-provoking, sensible approach that challenges both extreme positions on this issue. Objective and practical, this author offers insights and doable solutions to these issues critical to our times.

I notice that Paradox has been brought out by the same publisher who did Imperial Hubris. This book is a must read!

With all the concern about civil liberties and national security, it's important to point out there's special challenges on both sides between leaders who want increased authority for security measures and those who would protect individual privacy in the process. Here's something different: an alternative which suggests American openness is the root of America's ills - but that MORE openness will thwart threats and increase security. Author Bailey is an information technology expert specializing in security and privacy issues: his The Open Society Paradox: Why The 21st Century Calls For More Openness-Not Less makes for intriguing social analysis.

Dennis Bailey says it can because the internet forces a new, higher level of transparency and accountability on government by giving citizens greater, more immediate knowledge of what is going on behind previously closed official doors. He also says the key to protecting individual liberty while fighting the Global War on Terrorism is for our society to become more transparent to the government.

That probably sounds sinister (it did to me at first,too), but Bailey makes an extremely persuasive case for the idea that advanced technologies for reliably verifying identity and the ability to do extraordinarily complicated pattern searches while combing billions of pieces of data generated by the everyday activities of people offers us greater security. The reason is because using these tools the government is more likely to identify terrorists among us before they are able to strike us again.

Bailey addresses the Big Brother fears by contending that America's system of checks and balances has always and will continue to correct abuses. Lincoln suspended habeaus corpus during the Civil War, for example, but a year after the war ended the Supreme Court ruled the suspension was unconstitutional.

He also argues that sufficient procedural safeguards can be required when the government establishes anti-terrorist systhems based on these advanced technologies. As an example, pattern queries would require prior approval by a congressional authority and such queries would remain anonymous until probable cause was found and a federal judge approved federal authorities moving forward with an investigation.

I have my own doubts about the ultimate efficacy of the checks and balances and procedural safeguards, which I describe at length on my blog, Tapscott's Copy Desk. Bailey has a lengthy response there, too.

Even so, this is an extremely important book that presents a persuasive case for an approach that could give America a decisive edge in the war against terrorism while protecting the civil liberties we all cherish.

The Privacy vs. Openness debate is probably one that will continue for years and years. This is one of the great paradoxes of our time. Personally, I have grown tired of hearing the same people voicing the same tired banter. When I saw Dennis Bailey's book I thought it would be more of the same played out song. However, after reading Bailey's book, I was pleasantly surprised. Bailey addresses the same debate with new insight and a new perspective. Not only does he provide new ideas, but he presents them in a clear easy to read manner. In a time where national security is of utmost concern, I highly recommend this book to everyone.