The Other Side of the Accountability Matrix Jon Udell references a post by Phil Windley:
I did a little reading at lunch in The Transparent Society by David Brin. Brin sets forth the following and calls it an "accountability matrix:"
| 1. Tools that help me see what others are up to. |
2. Tools that prevent others from seeing what I am up to. |
| 3. Tools that help other see what I am up to. |
4. Tools that prevent me from seeing what others are up to. |
His contention is that people see boxes (1) and (2) and good and boxes (3) and (4) as bad. What what society needs is boxes (1) and (3) since that creates accountability. Further, society should eschew boxes (2) and (4) since that pits citizens against each other in "an arms race of masks, secrets, and indignation.
Jon goes on to reference and agree with what Matthew Blair wrote:
There is tremendous power in his [Brin's] fundamental idea of 'freedom through accountability' instead of 'freedom through secrecy'...This is the most important idea I've come across so far this year. [Throb]
These are all great points, and in principle I believe in striving for accountability over secrecy. But with the disclaimer that I haven't read the book, I think there is another point to make about the accountability matrix. Boxes (1) and (3) are why spam exists. For example, how spammers are now targeting bloggers. They create an arms race between people defending their time, let alone privacy, and those that exploit low cost mechanisms for accessing them and their information. There is a major downside to complete transparency because of its social costs. I also believe in developing tools that let you opt-out or let you disassociate, such anti-links.
In practicality, tools will be developed in all four boxes of the accountability matrix and there will be an arms race in both collumns.
11:35:49 AM 
|
