Talk:The Transparent Society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have changed equiveillance to equalveillance to stir some debate about the meaning of equilibrium between surveillance and sousveillance,

in some cases, it is acceptable that some persons are not equal to others when it comes to knowledge, such as, one would not allow a barber to extract a tooth, and only a dentist is allowed to look into ones mouth. A patient may photograph dental decay to understand the decay and treatment plan, or monitor a dentist to make sure an error does not occur during surgery. On the other hand, if we make the dentist nervous with recording, then his chances of making an error increase, so hence, it is advisable to just let the dentist do his/her job in surveillancing the dental problems with x rays and dental exams.

In this case, the know how dictates the equilibrium between surveillance and sousveillance, with opinion and treatment plan dependent upon the dentists cyborglog which forms his clinical judgement, which the individual patient has to trust.

[edit] is this the best external reference available?

This page doesn't seem to have attracted much editorial attention, but ...

Regarding the previous post: According to NPOV the TS page should not take a position regarding the acceptability or unacceptability of "some persons" being "equal to others when it comes to knowledge," nor is Wikipedia a venue for random people to "stir debate." And for what it's worth, I don't see the connection between dental surgery and information access. One need not invite everyone who likes looking at dental X-rays to do surgery.

In addition, the external page linked as "The pitfalls of privacy" is incoherent and contradictory. "Besides if someone has nothing that they would be ashamed of why would they worry about privacy." Since nobody has anything to be ashamed of, privacy is thus unnecessary. This is not high-quality analysis.