Edward Joseph Snowden, a 29 year-old systems administrator, the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations and already called biggest scandal of them all, wants transparency; so might I. But is transparency even possible, and what does transparency entail?

One of Edward’s important points is the implication of all your history being recorded, as you should assume to be fact for a while already in my opinion. For whatever reason you might come into a higher power’s cross hairs, be that power a government agency or a relatively private industry, your past will be efficiently filtered and presented in such a way that you are basically judged, condemned, and executed in one go (this being my version of two of the arguments he gives). This is not only done already routinely to whistleblowers for example, say via sexual charges (Julian Assange, many others), but landing in the crosshairs of power happens very often simply due to error or even mere quota filling by police agencies - you would not be the first one ending up innocently in jail my friend; a large part of the US population is already behind bars - in a large part of the possible futures, you are there tomorrow!

But is transparency possible? In a system-theoretical view on evolving social systems, there is information flow, communication channels more or less insulated, and with systems having intentions being present, some information is desired, yet held secret. Now a harmonious transparent society is transparent throughout, including your history for anybody and every filtering sentinel to see! Otherwise, transparency is reserved for the government and your bosses, but such a dualism between us down here and the system up there does not reflect the complexity of social reality.

What can a thinker that realizes the power and timeliness of transparency do to contribute with authenticity? Be transparent and see whether those who demand transparency can stomach such. I will reveal that I neither know any answers nor am I in the position to openly speak. Incredibly bad times of chaos are ahead of us, and I, in my suppressed hopes to be then recognized member of the new scientistic power elite, try to catch a seat in the lifeboat, even although I do not now admit such even to myself – I just put it here for effect, you know, wink wink. That we can save all and all your kids together with your toys is a hope, of course, that would be nice, but let us be transparent: Futures that are without you and yours can be described in rich plentitude, and in few of them does yours disappear happily walking of the stage.

A harmonious totalitarian society is transparent both ways, because a one sided transparency is not possible as long as there are any potentially dangerous sub-systems. They must be medicated, and in order for medication to reach them, they must be detected. But such a harmonious society cannot easily be evolved, not in theory and not now practically, not without a lot of pain still being on the way.

We cannot easily start transparency. Consider an experimental society that tries to see whether being completely transparent among each other can result in the trust necessary for there to be peace. Members are online and potentially watched by all other members. Clearly, joining this society, on grounds of its superior internal safety and riches perhaps, would still need an agreement with its rules. What if it forbids the very possession of a substance that I employ to good use, say a cognitive enhancer without which my life is just a dull depression not relieved by any medicine society endorses for me? Even if all of us agreed in the harmlessness of that substance, our experimental sub-society is still not free from necessary decision processes whenever I may malfunction relative to the rules in or outside. Sure, our experimental sub-society can say “look, he merely happened to malfunction according to how we see things”, but that does not resolve how to deal with the demands of the society outside. Is the member protected by us and does that not need at least some secrecy toward the outside? So as long as there is just some transparency, there is secrecy necessary, and so evolving transparency in a sustainable way is, if possible at all, a very gradual affair at times similar to secret intelligence warfare, and so the whole point of revolutionary radical transparency is highly suspect.

Edward, Julian, Aaron, so many more, they are all relatively clever and peaceful nice guys, but the reality is full of people that are on the whole brutal and stupid and to be feared and held at bay – all of them once a crisis hits, the rich smug guy listening to TED talks being one of the worst. So I am deeply divided over this issue. On one hand, Edward deserves a medal and we should perhaps gothat step and actually make the whole war business transparent. Why not tell people openly that we kill for resources – almost everybody already knows and does not even mind – let’s be honest here! On the other hand, keeping face anyway is perhaps still an important factor for social stability, and perhaps transparency cannot be achieved any other way but through a complete surveillance first. In that case, Edward has perhaps gone too far especially in thinking whistleblowers do not even need to hide anymore; perhaps the powers that are must set an example, smear him as a sexual deviant and intelligent psychopath, get rid of him in a way that the message is clearly understood by all of us whistleblowers, more clearly than with Bradley Manning.

Whatever you feel, I think transparency can only be gotten both ways. Make the surveillance transparent – people do not mind anyway, they want big brother!

Now let us end this on a lighter note with this hilarious spoof on the unsurprising “news” that the US government is spying on citizens:

Verizon: “Can you hear me now?”

Obama: “Yes we can!”

Verizon: “Can you hear me now?”

Obama: “Yes we can!”

Verizon: “Can you hear me now?”

Obama: “Yes we can!” ...