What do you think?
Rate this book
The Open Society Paradox: Why the 21st Century Calls for More Openness - Not Less
How do we ensure security and, at the same time, safeguard civil liberties? The Open Society Paradox challenges the conventional wisdom of those on both sides of the debateleaders who want unlimited authority and advocates who would sacrifice security for individual privacy protection. It offers a provocative alternative, suggesting that while the very openness of American society has left the United States vulnerable to today’s threats, only more of this quality will make the country safer and enhance its citizens’ freedom and mobility. Uniquely qualified to address these issues, Dennis Bailey argues that the solution is not to create a police state that restricts liberties but, paradoxically, to embrace greater openness. Through new technologies that engender transparency, including secure information, biometrics, surveillance, facial recognition, and data mining, society can remove the anonymity of the ill-intentioned while revitalizing the notions of trust and accountability and enhancing freedom for most Americans. He explores the impact of greater transparency on our lives, our relationships, and our liberties. The Open Society Paradox is a brave exploration of how to realign our traditional assumptions about privacy with a twenty-first-century concept of an open society.
229 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2004
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 26, 2018
Well written and documented though the author's premise depends on statement while decryinging
Well written and documented with a premise that falls short of convincing. The author's call for accepting intrusion into a private life he says does not exist left me more agitated than enlightened.
Well written and documented with a premise that falls short of convincing. The author's call for accepting intrusion into a private life he says does not exist left me more agitated than enlightened.
April 2, 2012
From my review in Security Management magazine:
To some extent, everyone zealously guards his or her own privacy and fights to preserve it. But what are the chances we are fighting to secure the wrong thing? What if greater openness and transparency could protect our society better than fighting to preserve privacy at all costs? This is the thesis of The Open Society Paradox, in which author Dennis Bailey argues forcefully for a homeland identification card, openness in government and society, and the use of sophisticated information analysis as a powerful triple play to reduce the risk of cybercrime and terrorism.
Bailey argues convincingly that untraceable anonymity, especially on the Internet, reduces individual accountability and contributes to spam, contraband trafficking, and even transnational terrorist conspiracies. Privacy and anonymity are not, and should not be, synonymous, Bailey says.
For one thing, he asserts, a real right to privacy has never existed (certainly, there is no explicit right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution).
In addition, encroaching technology will inevitably deny personal privacy in the future. Given that the public has only a tenuous grip on what is a nebulous right to privacy, Bailey recommends sacrificing some privacy for greater accountability, which he contends will result in terrorists and criminals having fewer places to hide amongst us.
Bailey also takes on the growing identity-theft problem, which he says stems from the security flaw created when Social Security numbers were first used as both a means of identification and authentication. As a solution to identity theft, Bailey recommends strongly binding people to their identities using smart cards, biometric signatures, and even DNA.
Regrettably, other than suggesting that state motor vehicle offices abide by a common standard when issuing driver's licenses, Bailey does not describe precisely how binding people to their identities might be accomplished. Who will conduct the initial enrollment? Which certificate authorities will be trusted? How will politics affect how one state treats enrollments certified by other states? He leaves these challenging issues frustratingly unresolved.
Though his arguments are thought-provoking, Bailey is at times inconsistent. He agrees that asymmetrical transparency, in which citizens are required to surrender their privacy but the government is not, is a recipe for disaster. Yet he defends the Clipper Chip, Carnivore (the FBI system that "taps" e-mail), and CAPPS II (the proposed airline passenger-screening system) as misunderstood tools in the war on terror and other crime, expressing little concern that their internal workings are classified, rather than open to public scrutiny.
Toward the conclusion, Bailey writes, "If the government is to wage the war against terrorism successfully without violating important civil liberties, an intelligent and informed debate would greatly enhance the chances of finding a reasonable balance."
Well researched and copiously footnoted, this book is a welcome contribution to the debate. But since it doesn't address the myriad impediments to the effective implementation of its recommendations, Bailey's book must serve as a philosophical way point on the path, not a final blueprint of the solution.
To some extent, everyone zealously guards his or her own privacy and fights to preserve it. But what are the chances we are fighting to secure the wrong thing? What if greater openness and transparency could protect our society better than fighting to preserve privacy at all costs? This is the thesis of The Open Society Paradox, in which author Dennis Bailey argues forcefully for a homeland identification card, openness in government and society, and the use of sophisticated information analysis as a powerful triple play to reduce the risk of cybercrime and terrorism.
Bailey argues convincingly that untraceable anonymity, especially on the Internet, reduces individual accountability and contributes to spam, contraband trafficking, and even transnational terrorist conspiracies. Privacy and anonymity are not, and should not be, synonymous, Bailey says.
For one thing, he asserts, a real right to privacy has never existed (certainly, there is no explicit right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution).
In addition, encroaching technology will inevitably deny personal privacy in the future. Given that the public has only a tenuous grip on what is a nebulous right to privacy, Bailey recommends sacrificing some privacy for greater accountability, which he contends will result in terrorists and criminals having fewer places to hide amongst us.
Bailey also takes on the growing identity-theft problem, which he says stems from the security flaw created when Social Security numbers were first used as both a means of identification and authentication. As a solution to identity theft, Bailey recommends strongly binding people to their identities using smart cards, biometric signatures, and even DNA.
Regrettably, other than suggesting that state motor vehicle offices abide by a common standard when issuing driver's licenses, Bailey does not describe precisely how binding people to their identities might be accomplished. Who will conduct the initial enrollment? Which certificate authorities will be trusted? How will politics affect how one state treats enrollments certified by other states? He leaves these challenging issues frustratingly unresolved.
Though his arguments are thought-provoking, Bailey is at times inconsistent. He agrees that asymmetrical transparency, in which citizens are required to surrender their privacy but the government is not, is a recipe for disaster. Yet he defends the Clipper Chip, Carnivore (the FBI system that "taps" e-mail), and CAPPS II (the proposed airline passenger-screening system) as misunderstood tools in the war on terror and other crime, expressing little concern that their internal workings are classified, rather than open to public scrutiny.
Toward the conclusion, Bailey writes, "If the government is to wage the war against terrorism successfully without violating important civil liberties, an intelligent and informed debate would greatly enhance the chances of finding a reasonable balance."
Well researched and copiously footnoted, this book is a welcome contribution to the debate. But since it doesn't address the myriad impediments to the effective implementation of its recommendations, Bailey's book must serve as a philosophical way point on the path, not a final blueprint of the solution.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews