From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@turbont.net)
Date: Sat Mar 25 2000 - 00:45:12 MST
Zero Powers wrote:
>
> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <mike@datamann.com>
>
> >>If there were no such thing as criminally
> > > minded people, there would be no need to have this discussion. The
> >plain
> > > fact though, is that that is not the case.
> >
> >But treating everyone by the standard of the lowest common denominator (the
> >savage) communicates that there is no value, no benefit to behaving as a
> >citizen. If you expect everyone to act the worste possible way, a lot of
> >people
> >will fulfill your expectations. And it will be YOUR fault.
>
> That's a bit of a cop-out from free will buff like yourself, don't you
> think? If I assume that you are a crook are you going to become a crook?
> And if you do is that really *my* fault? Puh-lease.
>
> > > Sure all people are innocent until proven guilty, I just don't
> > > make it a policy to give unknown people the opportunity to prove their
> >guilt
> > > on me.
>
> >However you don't need to know everything about everyone. As work by Robin
> >Hanson and others with Baysean theory shows, you don't need to know
> >everything.
> >The only people who insist on knowing everything about everyone are those
> >that
> >have the lowest possible opinion of their fellow man. Such people should be
> >considered to sick to be allowed to contribute to the development or
> >implementation of public policy.
>
> Again you get me wrong. I recognize that I don't have the capacity to know
> everything. Moreover I have no desire to know everything. Right now I
> could exercize my rights under the FOIA to search through mountains of
> government documents. I have no desire to, so I don't. My point is not to
> give Zero Powers omniscience. It is to do away with the hoarding of data.
> Information wants to be free (yes even your bank records) and I merely want
> information to reach its goal.
Under your MAS, you will have access to everything, about everyone,
on every occasion, in every place. Whether you utilize the tools in
place
at all times is irrelevant. That you placed them there indicates you
have
no faith in your fellow man.
>
> >You give untold numbers of people the ability and opportunity to prove
> >their
> >innocence every day, and they do so in many ways, all the time. That you
> >prefer
> >to focus on the rare incident and/or minor risk of guilty behavior, while
> >ignoring the overwhelming weight of innocent behavior as evidence to attest
> >to
> >the 'reasonableness' of your proposals indicates that you have some issues.
>
> Like you I want to treat everyone the same. You want everyone, criminals
> and innocent alike, to be able to hide their data and themselves. I want
> everyone, criminals and innocent alike to step out of the shadows. I'm not
> focusing on crime. I'm focusing on efficiency. Yes, I do have issues. My
> main issue in this discussion is that the hoarding of data is inefficient,
> counter productive and sooner or later will be downright dangerous.
Efficiency doesn't mean a hill of cowturds when it comes to human
rights.
Those that put efficiency before human rights are nothing but
borganists.
I treat everyone the same UNTIL they have shown that they are not
deserving.
You automatically assume that everyone is worth less than fly spit in a
pig sty,
and they have to prove to you that they are clean before you will deign
to
breathe the same air as they.
>
> >I didn't say that she would dissapear without telling you why, but even
> >then you
> >allowed that if she had a damn good reason, then it would be ok.
>
> Of course it would, based upon the data about her I had access to before she
> left. Why is it so hard for you to grasp that point?
I grasp it fine. It was your misconstruing that exposed the fact you
already have a lack of trust for her.
>
> >If she told you
> >she was going to Jupiter on a NASA mission, with 20 men, for ten years,
> >what
> >would you do then?
>
> Ridiculous hypothetical. My wife would not do that for all the tea in
> China, so I can't give any response.
Hold on a sec. You already proposed the hypothetical that she would run
off for ten years without telling you, so it only follows that you don't
trust her to tell you where she is going.
>
> >Moreover, once you developed a level of trust in her, from her past record,
> >you
> >acknowledge that it would be ok for her to NOT be under your surveillance
> >for
> >ten years, so you have just given up your insistence of total surveillance.
> >You
> >don't spy on your wife at work, do you? Do you feel you have to? Why? Do
> >you
> >have a mental problem?
>
> Once again, simply because the means of ubiquitous surveillance exists does
> not mean that I would necessarily make use of them at all. And even if I
> did it certainly would not occupy the bulk of my day. Just knowing that
> universal surveillance was possible would have the desired effect.
>
> And, no as far as I am aware I have no mental problems. But your
> frustration at the difficulty you are having with this argument is once
> again leading you down the path of hyperbole and name-calling. If you
> simply can't cut that out, I will have to once again drop another debate
> with you.
If the hat fits...like any fascist or mental patient, you have to
acknowledge you are sick before you can start getting better...
>
> > > In other words, you trust me to the extent that you've been able to do
> > > "surveillance" on me. Without the information gained regarding my
> >record
> > > and my respectable background, you'd have no basis for trusting me,
> >right?
> > > Thank you. You have made my point better than I could have.
> >
> >No I haven't, because I do not base my judgement on 30 years of utter and
> >total
> >surveillance of your every waking movement, action, and utterance.
>
> You are now talking about a matter of *degree*. No you haven't surveilled
> me for 30 years, and your surveillance has not been very thorough or
> detailed. But still to the extent that you trust me (which admittedly is
> not very much) it is based upon what you *know* about me. That, Michael, is
> called intelligence, data gathering, knowledge, in a word...surveillance.
> Get it??
I get it perfectly, however you seem to feel the overwhelming need to
know every instance I ever scratched my scrotum, every time I picked my
nose, felt up my lady love, or spanked my kids for misbehaving. In past
days,
it was people such as you who got put in jail for the perversion that
peeping is.
That I know this much about you totally negates any possible trust I
might have
previously had for you. I understand that it is natural for those who
are
untrustworthy to have a similar level of distrust for others.
>
> >However,
> >given your history on this list of tending to prefer solutions proposed and
> >espoused by paranoid , megalomaniacal fascists, my level of trust in you is
> >low
> >and would need to be augmented by countering evidence that you are only
> >playing
> >devils advocate, etc...
>
> More name calling. Come on, do a little better than that.
>
> >Treating all as if they are each the worst possible person is not the way
> >to
> >build trust.
>
> One more time, with feeling. MAS does not treat people as if they were good
> or bad. MAS merely assures that people's actions, whether good or bad, will
> be recorded.
Ever heard of the Honor Code? You assume that people will behave
according
to the highest, not the lowest, standard. MAS assumes that many or all
people will live according to the lowest possible standard unless they
are treated like common prisoners.
> Virtually every conversation that the U.S. President has is
> recorded. Why do you think that is?
Because politicians, by definition, cannot be trusted to deal with
domestic
politics honestly (and many ohters you cannot trust at all). Anyone who
really
wants the job is unqualified morally to occupy the position.
> Is it because we as a nation have
> decided that our Presidents are all to be treated as if they are the worst
> possible person?
Well, DUH, because they have proven repeatedly, especially most recently
as
well as Nixon, that if given the opportunity, they would prefer to do
their
dirty work and cover things up and destroy evidence. Dishonorable
behavior
dishonors the office, and dishonors anyone who would seek to occupy such
a stained post.
> Or is it because the actions of our President can have
> drastic and far-reaching effects and, as a result, it is important to have
> an accurate record?
The best and most drastic things our Presidents have done in our history
nobody who is not Ultra cleared has any idea ever happened. There may be
a record, but there are less than a few dozen people who know it exists.
These are incidents of national security, which do not benefit the
President personally in any way, the existence of the incidents is kept
at highest secrecy, and nobody is worse for wear.
>
> Stop, think, take a deep breath. Now reply.
>
> > > Again, no. MAS has nothing to do with the presumption of innocence. I
> > > presume everyone is innocent until proven otherwise. MAS merely
> >provides
> > > *verification* of innocence, or the lack thereof.
> >
> >Why do you need verification of innocence unless you don't trust anyone to
> >be
> >innocent? MAS has EVERYTHING to do with the presumption of innocence.
>
> I've said it as many times as I can say it in as many different ways as I
> can. If you don't get it by now I have to give up.
And you have shown absofreaking lootly NO evidence to support your
assertions.
I have 70+ years of tyrannical fascism, well documented (those fascists
love
their paperwork and their secret police and informant networks) to prove
my point.
That you choose to disregard Santayana's Law is indicative of your
problems.
>
> >To the common, public, well of information. Haven't you understood the
> >Tragedy
> >of the Commons?
>
> And how, exactly, does that have anything at all to do with the discussion
> at hand?
When your private information is no longer private, it belongs to the
community. Community property is always abused and treated poorly by the
state.
>
> >I don't care what the government does, so long as it stays out of my life.
> >If it
> >treats everyone like I want it to treat me, then there is no need for your
> >Orwellian anarchy.
>
> More big and improbable "ifs." The government does not treat you the way
> you want to be treated. Virtually every aspect of your life is documented.
> Everytime you get a driver's license, everytime you purchase a firearm,
> every time you file a tax return, every time you buy anything other than
> with cash or a cashier's check, every time you register a vehicle, every
> time you apply for a loan or credit of any kind, and on and on and on...it
> is *documented.*
I haven't spoken to or communicated with a government person outside of
the
neighborhood cop, the town clerk, and my county sherriff in over three
years
(I take that back, I did give a ration of raw sewage to an ATF agent in
a
parking lot one day, I asked them if they had notified the county
sherriff
that they would be in his jurisdiction that day, when she said no, I
told
her to get her welfare ass back on federal property until she notifies
the
local CLEO that she is entering their jurisdiction. Federal agents are
breaking the law when they don't notify and get permission to enter
state
jurisdiction from the CLEO (the county Sherriff)).
I haven't needed to renew my license in three years. I do buy everything
with cash, I don't apply for loans or credit (those are for wage
slaves),
and all of my banking is either anonymously or done overseas.
>
> MAS will not change the fact that your life is documented. What it will do
> though is allow you to know exactly to what extent your life is and has been
> documented (which you do not know now) and what is contained in that
> documentation.
>
> >If you know my bank records, then you know my account information. If you
> >know
> >my biometrics and my PGP keys, then you can impersonate me and steal my
> >assets.
> >With total mutual surveillance comes the end of not only privacy, but
> >property,
> >free speech, free association, and self defense.
>
> Not quite. See, one more time, the key to MAS is *mutuality*. Whenever I
> access your bank records, you will know it. You will know exactly what I
> found out, when I found it out, and what I did with it. I could not
> impersonate you because whatever I did to impersonate you would *also* be
> recorded. You could then follow my trail and watch as I put on my Michael
> Lorrey mask, and counterfeited my Michael Lorrey fingerprints. In a truly
> open society there would be no way for me to get away with usurping your
> personality, therefore there would be no incentive for me to try, therefore
> you would have no cause to be so scared about me perusing your dossier.
Anything digital can be counterfeited. No system is foolproof. When
privacy
is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy.
>
> >With MAS, because everyone will know everything you say, you won't dare say
> >anything that the majority will dissaprove of.
>
> That's hogwash. Are you saying that you don't express yourself now unless
> what you have to say is politically correct or you are incognito? Seems to
> me you've got more intestinal fortitude than that. My opinions regarding
> transparency are not approved by the majority, but I have absolutely no
> qualms about expressing them (or couldn't you tell?)
*I* don't care enough about the PC attitudes of city slickers to let it
interfere with my stating what's on my mind, but I'm an odd duck who has
been through the shit, and now every day I live is merely gravy. I also
know that when and if anyone shows up at my door to confiscate my
rights,
they'll get an attitude adjustment between the eyes, so I'm not too
concerned about any consequences of my exercising my freedom of speech.
You may not have any qualms about expressing yourself, but thats only
because you are anonymous. I live on the web as I live in real life: I
use my real name, and its easy to find out where I am. If you are all so
fired up about your transparent society, why don't you come out from
behind your anonymous pseudonym and get a taste of your own medicine?
Start walking the walk, stop talking the talk.
>
> >With MAS, none of your property belongs to you anymore, because everyone
> >knows
> >where it is, and when you are not there to watch it, and what your security
> >keys
> >are, etc.
>
> Dealt with this above.
>
> >WIth MAS, everyone will know with whome you associate, so you will not
> >associate
> >with anyone that is not approved of by the majority.
>
> Only if you are a *real* coward would you let society dictate who you
> associate with.
>
> >With MAS, everyone will know where you are at any given time. A person with
> >the
> >wish to kill does not care about the consequences of that action, if they
> >know
> >where to find you while they are still enraged, they will find you and kill
> >you.
>
> That applies now. There's nothing you can do about that. Chances are
> though that anyone who wishes to kill you can already figure out where to
> find you. Its not often that a stranger who has never met you has the
> uncontrollable desire to find you and kill you.
I never met Hitler, but if he were alive today I would not hesitate
to hunt him down and blow his ass away. So far as I can tell, there are
at
least ten million other people in the world who would agree with me,
maybe
more. Am I justified? If someone raped my sister, and I knew where he
would
be at any given moment, would I care about any possible consequences?
No, I would not. There are plenty of sick people out there who would not
care about your surveillance system, and there are plenty of sane people
like myself who would also not let your system stop us when your
'perfect'
justice system let the bastards off, and your surveillance system would
still not cover every square inch of the world. Once you've got your
cameras in the cities, they would find other shadows to hide in.
Frankly, these city slicker attitudes make me sick. I see this crap up
here all the time from morons who move up from the city to escape the
problems of city life, then they start screaming
to change things up here so that everything is just like it was where
they came from, then they wonder why everything starts turning to shit.
> The only difference that
> MAS will make in this situation is the assurance that the would-be murderer
> will not get away with his crime. Will that discourage *everyone*? No.
> Will it discourage the great majority of sane people with homicidal
> tendencies? Unquestionably.
Hardly. Any survey of criminals shows they are not concerned with
getting
caught, they are only concerned with getting shot in the process.
>
> >If the majority decides that you are a politically dangerous individual,
> >you
> >will be found, and dissention will end.
>
> You are assuming that surveillance equals totalitarianism. MAS in a free
> society does not make it any more likely than now that dissent will end just
> because you can be found.
Surrendering your freedom to everyone else, or just to one tyrant is
immaterial. Freedoms originate in the individual, and when they are
confiscated from the individual, it does not matter who does the
confiscating,
or how many people share in the benefits of the confiscation. Only the
specific individual who has demonstrated their inability to abide and
respect the rights of others deserves to have their rights confiscated
in this manner, either by the social body, or by the leaders on high.
>
> > > So now what? I can say "Hey Michael I see you just paid another $200 to
> >the
> > > ATF for another machine gun."
> > >
> > > And you can say, "Yes, I know that you know that. And you also know
> >that I
> > > know you just paid $200 for another bullet-proof vest, but that wouldn't
> >do
> > > you much good if I decided to use my armor-piercing bullets on you."
> > >
> > > And then I could say, "Perhaps, but since I follow you around with the
> > > ubiquitous public surveillance camera network, I would know the minute
> >you
> > > left your house with your machine gun and I could follow you as you got
> > > closer and closer to my house. As soon as you got within 100 feet of my
> > > front door, I'd alert the AI police chief who would be ready to
> >incapacitate
> > > you with the nano-police the second you pointed your gun at me and put
> >your
> > > finger on the trigger."
> > >
> > > And then you could say "Yeah, I guess you're right. So I won't kill you
> > > today. Hey wanna go check out a football game?"
> >
> >Which merely illustrates the depth to which your paranoia has developed.
>
> You're about 3 straws away from the last one.
>
> >Since
> >machine gun technology has been around since the 19th century, and it has
> >been
> >the least commonly used gun technology in crime, while there are over 200k
> >private owners. This record indicates that, by definition, a person who
> >owns a
> >machine gun is not very likely to commit a crime with it, and is therefore
> >trustworthy. All your surveillance of me does is feed your paranoias to the
> >point that you and every other paranoiac start screaming to the government
> >that
> >everyone needs to be locked up in chains to make the world safe for
> >paranoiacs.
>
> 2 straws to go.
>
> > > Without at least some knowlege, what could there possibly be to base
> >respect
> > > upon?
> >
> >That is your primary problem. You don't, in your heart, assume that anyone
> >is
> >good or innocent.
>
> Well maybe you are different (and apparently you are) but with me trust and
> respect have to be *earned*. That doesn't mean that I assume every stranger
> is untrustworthy or unworthy of respect. It just means they are a blank
> slate. In my mind you are neither trustworthy nor untrustworthy until you
> demonstrate yourself as such.
If you insist that you have access to every action they have ever taken,
and
every thing that other people have ever said about them, then you don't
trust anyone for anything.
>
> >Your insistence that people prove their innocence indicates
> >you don't beleive in the presumption of innocence. I do beleive in the
> >innate
> >goodness, innocence, and trustworthyness of the vast majority of people.
>
> I'm not insisting that anyone prove anything. I merely maintain that we'll
> all be better off when we stop hoarding data.
Maintain it all you want. I say you are wrong. Show evidence that the
abrogation
of human rights is more important than the risk. The fact that we lived
through
the atomic age without total MAD on every and any nuclear power (The US,
for
instance, did not distrust the British, and we did not aim missiles at
them,
nor did we or do we aim at Isreal, South Africa, France, India, or
Pakistan.
Only those powers that proved their dishonor through their actions were
treated to the MAD treatment), indicates that human beings are
tolerable, and
generally trustworthy. Your MAS system would have you treating even your
closest
freinds, allies, partners, and loved ones as if they were the worst
creatures
ever produced in history. It does not matter if you actually use those
cameras
24 hours a day. It is enough that they are there that indicate that you
do not
trust your closest, dearest fellow man.
>
> >I do
> >not prejudge everyone based upon the poor behavior of less than 1% of the
> >population, and I know that if anyone ever does prove me wrong in their
> >particular instance, I am prepared to deal with that individual, in that
> >instance, as they should be dealt with, while I can go on treating everyone
> >else
> >as normal, honest, honorable human beings.
>
> Great. Me too. That has nothing to do with transparency.
It has everything to do with transparency. Insisting on total
transparency
for everyone is to automatically assume that everyone has something to
hide
that is so heinous that they do not deserve to have their human rights
respected.
I for one do not think so poorly of my fellow man. You might, but that
is
YOUR problem, don't make it mine.
>
> >Your problem is paranoia coupled with extreme extroversion, my problem is
> >introversion. Since when does your problem become more important than mine?
>
> 1 straw left. I am neither paranoid nor extroverted. But to you point
> (such as it is), MAS will not interfere one iota with your introversion. If
> you want to stay huddled in your house surrounded by nothing but your
> arsenal, MAS will not force you to do otherwise. Just because I can find
> out where you live does not mean I'll be able to drop by without your
> permission.
Say what? You just contradicted the whole idea of MAS. With MAS you will
know exactly when and where I will be. As humans are typically creatures
of habit, you will also develop good approximations of when and where I
will be before I am there. With access to all information about me,
including my private keys, you can ambush me, steal my assets when they
are not under my direct control. Anyone who thinks that MAS is the
panacea
for all that ailes society is living in the same sort of fantasy land
that
the pre-stalin western socialists lived in. Workers Paradise my ass.
>
> >I really hate slick people. I prefer people who are charming as a matter of
> >course, not because they have to be...
>
> You only like people who are charming 24 hours a day? Where (other than
> yourself of course) have you ever met such a person?
There are lots of such people. My number one rule in life with regards
to
dealing with other people is I refuse to suffer assholes gladly. Even
then I may
cut them slack if its not a matter intentional assholishness.
>
> >Oh, Brave New World.....
> >
> >Slavery is Freedom......all hail Slavery.
>
> Yeah well whatever. Hey look at that! You *still* have 1 straw left! Let's
> see how long it lasts.
The only reason I have one straw left is that you have no actual power
to
oppress me at this point in time, so you dare not have your bluff
called.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:38 MST