From: Michael S. Lorrey (mike@datamann.com)
Date: Wed Mar 29 2000 - 13:30:00 MST
Zero Powers wrote:
> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net>
> >
> >Zero Powers wrote:
> > >
> > > >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net>
> > > >
> > > >Zero Powers wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Well the transparency I advocate is mutual, two-way, transparency.
> > > >Meaning
> > > > > that the individual would be no more subject to surveillance than
> >the
> > > > > government. In fact my suggestion is "power equivolent
> >surveillance,"
> > > >such
> > > > > that the more power you have to meddle in others lives, the *more*
> >you
> > > >are
> > > > > subject to surveillance. In this scheme, the President and members
> >of
> > > > > congress would live in a virtual fish bowl and we the people would
> >be
> > > >able
> > > > > to know virtually *everything* about their political, business and
> > > >personal
> > > > > affairs.
> > >
> > > >I share your enthusiasm for accountability for our elected and
> >appointed
> > > >leaders, however your proposal that they have more surveillance than
> >the
> > > >average person runs counter to every security protocol of any leader
> > > >security detail that ever kept its subject alive for more than 5
> > > >minutes.
> > >
> > > Not really. In fact this sort of power-proportional transparency is
> >already
> > > in effect in some ways. Right now we can know much more about President
> > > Clinton than he could ever know about you. I know where and when he
> >travels
> > > abroad. I know why he has gone there and whom he talked to and what
> >they
> > > talked about. If I wanted to I could, in a matter of minutes, find out
> >what
> > > his agenda is for next week, where he'll be and what he'll be doing. In
> > > fact its probably fair to say that Clinton is the *most* surveilled
> >person
> > > on the planet, as it should be. And he has been kept alive by his
> >security
> > > detail for a little more than 5 minutes.
> >
> >What he does in public is immaterial. Your proposal would have everyone
> >knowing how he takes a crap, what he says to his little cover-up team
> >members, you will be able to catch him when he or his men are destroying
> >evidence or porking their interns...
>
> Sure. Is any of that going to make you able to assasinate him?
Knowing where he is at any given moment, learning his travel patterns and
schedules can tell me a lot, and give me a very good opportunity to set up a
hit. Oswald was able to off Kennedy specifically because he KNEW that Kennedy
was going to be passing under his place of work at a specific time and date.
This is why such information is no longer available.
> > > > > When we have gotten past national sovereignty and moved on to
> > > >cooperative
> > > > > democratic global governance, there will be no need for such things
> >as
> > > >state
> > > > > secrets and national security. At that point we will only be
> >concerned
> > > >with
> > > > > (1) individual security and (2) global security. Both of those
> >types of
> > > > > security would best be served by ubiquitous transparency.
> > > >
> > > >Once, and if, national sovereignty ends or wanes, there will still be
> > > >other forms of corporate organizations (a government is actually
> >nothing
> > > >but a corporation with a monopoly on setting the rules of the market
> >and
> > > >use of overwhelming force) that will gain pre-eminence. Private
> > > >corporate structures, which owe no allegiance to national governments,
> > > >bills of human rights, or philosophical principles other than making
> > > >money and the golden rule (he who has the gold makes the rules). If you
> > > >are going to end government corporations, you must also end the
> > > >formation of other corporate structures as well...
> > >
> > > Again, not really. Microsoft would be a likely candidate for your big
> >scary
> > > corporation scenario. But what can Microsoft do to abridge my human
> >rights?
> > > It cannot legally amass an army. The worst it could do is obtain an
> > > insurmountable monopoly in the marketplace such that my choice as a
> >consumer
> > > would be restrained. And as we see in the news everyday, even that
> >ability
> > > is significanly curtailed by antitrust legislation.
> >
> >Its pretty obvious you don't see the holes in your own argument. If
> >there is no government, then there is nothing illegal about corporations
> >amassing their own armies.
>
> Its pretty obvious you aren't paying attention. I do not advocate anarchy.
> Just because there are no more *national* governments does not mean there
> would be an global governmental vacuum.
Any factors that lead to the end of national governments will likely lead to the
end of global governments as well, unless the change is that everyone decides to
surrender their rights to the global government. Not bloody likely.
>
> >In fact, your point is bogus, because
> >corporations CAN amass their own armies right now.
>
> Wrong. Remember Waco?
What about Waco? Koresh was suspected of +illegally+ manufacturing automatic
weapons, and was busted on the sale of a weapon that is regulated by the NFA of
1934 without doing transfer tax paperwork, and without a class III license to do
so. The NFA laws, for those that have actually read them, specifically state
that corporations are not required to undergo background checks, nor pay the
$200 transfer tax.. The authority of the ATF is solely based upon the NFA of
1934, which is not a gun control law, it is a tax law. The ATF is not a law
enforcement agency, it is a tax collection agency. The Koresh people were
manufacturing class III weapons without a Class III permit, and without paying
the $200.00 transfer taxes. Waco was not a law enforcement activity, it was a
tax collection mission reminiscent of something you'd see in cartoons like Hagar
the Horrible or the Wizard of Id.
> >Corporations can buy
> >any weapon manufactured right now except nukes, and they don't need an
> >ATF background check, and they don't pay a $200.00 transfer tax.
>
> Buying a gun is a far cry from amassing an army.
I, as a private individual, or me and my freinds, as a corporation, can purchse
ANY weapon manufactured in the US or allowed to be imported, with the exception
of nuclear weapons. For I as an individual to do so, I need to either pass a
background check and pay the transfer tax for class III weapons, or for
destructive devices, get a DD permit and pay the transfer taxes on those items.
YOU need to read the laws you claim to know, but don't, before you go about
making yourself look like a fool any more than you already have.
> > > >Since the powerful will have greater computational resources, they will
> > > >be able to make better use of the intelligence value of this ubiquitous
> > > >surveillance, so even if everyone has the same 'access' (or even if the
> > > >powerful have 'less' access, they will still make better use of the
> >data
> > > >and will be able to oppress people more as a result. Surveillance is
> > > >merely an intelligence gathering channel. Its value is directly related
> > > >to how much you can process in a given amount of time, and how much
> > > >useless data you can filter out. Unless you are going to mandate that
> > > >everyone have exactly the same amount of computing power, no more, no
> > > >less, then your scheme cannot work as you envision it, and it will
> > > >become a tool of repression for the powerful.
> > >
> > > Once again, not really. It doesn't take much computing power at all to
> > > browse an efficiently designed and frequently updated database. Each
> > > citizen would not have to bear the onerous burden of creating and
> > > maintaining their own database. The database would be publicly
> >maintained
> > > (of course under the glare of a great deal of transparency). When I
> >wanted
> > > the info, I'd just cruise on over to the database, log in and have a
> >look
> > > around. Not much different than what happens now when you go to
> >google.com.
> > > I would not have much advantage using a 1ghz Pentium III over somebody
> > > using a 66mhz 486 in browsing such a database.
> >
> >You obviously do not comprehend the scope of the problem at hand. We are
> >talking the ability to monitor and filter the input of MILLIONS of
> >cameras, giving real=time output of deeds being done. The computer that
> >can do that has not been built yet, and when it is YOU won't the first
> >person to get one, it will be the government and the big corporations.
>
> Once again, with feeling this time: Just because the googobs of data are
> available doesn't mean it would make sense for you to try to keep tabs on
> all of it. The data that effects *you* could be automatically sent to you
> in the form of e-mail or an automated telephone call.
If I were a dictator, or a would-be dicator, I would love to have such a
resource as constant datafeeds from every person in my realm, and the
would-be-dictator-me would make sure that:
a) I had enough processing capability to filter every feed on a constant bases
to look out for:
i) lawbreakers
ii) opponents
iii) subersives
iv) plots against me
v) women who wanted to have my babies ;)
b) Nobody else was able to develop similar capability.
> Something like:
>
> "Good morning Mr. Lorrey. Last night at 11:18 p.m. Zero Powers accessed
> your address, telephone number and social security number. If you would
> like his address, telephone number and social security number press 1. If
> you would like to be notified when and how he makes use of your data press
> 2. If you would like a summary of his every move today e-mailed to you
> press 3."
>
> Viola! You don't even need a computer, much less a very powerful one.
Such a simple mind.
You are not thinking in the proper scope. There will be literally tens of
thousands, up to millions of requests for your information and video feed every
day. The NSA alone would love to run filtering on the video feeds of every
person on the planet, and anyone who has any intelligence can see that if such
technology is developed, it will be they who have it first.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:44 MST