The Myth of the 'Transparent Society'
wired.com
wired.com
The overwhelming impression I get of this guy's world view is that it is all a zero sum game and the most important question to worry about is the distrubution of this finite amount of power.
I don't think he'd argue that any citizen should have the power of a police officer to arrest someone. That could involve a great deal of violence, and officers are trained for those situations.
His point is more that given existing asymmetry in power, symmetric exposure of information is not equivalent.
You can find out about a cop arresting you. The Cop can find out about you. But the cop can do so much more with that information, and can do it faster.
He often has argued for the inherent benefit of privacy.
So what if 'symmetric exposure to information is not equivalent'? If the net result is benefit then isn't that a good thing? By net result I mean
i.e. net result = gain/disadvantage for cop + gain/disadvantage for non-cop
His argument is that a smaller gain for members of the public plus a larger gain for cops if somehow bad. But if both parties gain what is the problem? Well if you don't really believe that extra 'value' can be created in the world (zero sum game) then you don't see it as both parties gaining. You view it as one party gaining value (power) at the expense of another. This appeared to be the assumption he was making.