That is not David Brin's point[1]. Brin's point is more that the government will inevitably surveil citizens, and since citizens cannot reasonably prevent it, the best option is to try to level the playing field so that citizens can surveil the government back. In other words, reciprocal transparency is the least bad option.
I discuss this pretty regularly with Brin (on G+). We disagree strongly.
His point is that souveillance is the solution. I disagree for the reasons expressed by Bruce Schneier (in his famous exchange with Brin) and Yonatan Zunger (in a comment included on my G+ profile page links). Surveillance amplifies power imbalances.
Power and People have different mixes of power and vulnerability. Each exploits its strengths and fears its weaknesses. Transparency doesn't of itself balance those differences though. If anything, it amplifies them.
That said, I'm for transparency punching up. Less so punching down absent clear justification -- much as the US founding fathers established in the Bill of Rights.
I still think you are mischaracterizing Brin. He does not think transparency "solves everything" or is "the solution". He just believes that reciprocal transparency is the least bad option. If there were a better option, such as complete privacy for all, perhaps Brin would prefer that. But realistically, such is not feasible.
[1] Transparent Society, by David Brin