Realistically it’s also impossible to control what people say online about companies. Just type the name of any large company into the Google search engine followed by the word “sucks” and you’ll see what I mean.
The title of this article is “Meetings and the Limits of Government Transparency.” No, I’m not writing about NSA, Snowden, or national security. I’m writing about some government staff meetings and how open they should be to the public.
The bottom line: in a post-smartphone era, the more we know where our data are and how they are used the better off we are. Network companies — or governments — that resist making such data more accessible will be disadvantaged in the marketplace. Users of networks that ignore the interests of their customers will likewise be disadvantaged.
In NSA: The Decision Problem George Dyson lays out a credible historical view on why he thinks what Snowden revealed about the NSA and PRISM was inevitable. While it’s certainly a pleasure to read a discussion of these issues that is so thoughtful, I think he misses one major theme that helps us understand our current predicament over what to do about Snowden.
What drives me crazy about the debates around Google Glass is the groups of people who keep on saying, “Society will adjust. People will get used to it. It’s no different than what we have now with omnipresent security cameras and smartphones in every pocket.”
Oh, I know you are supposed to be able to fine-tune all the all this via Facebook settings. But I have more important things to do than to constantly rejigger confusing Facebook notification and privacy settings.