From: Michael S. Lorrey (mike@datamann.com)
Date: Wed Mar 29 2000 - 13:59:32 MST
Zero Powers wrote:
> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <mike@datamann.com>
>
> > > Exactly! What you're talking about is certainly not ubiquitous
> > > transparency, in fact it is not even close. As you point out,
> >totalitarian
> > > governments thrive on *secrecy*. Mutual, power proportional
> >transparency
> > > effectively brings and *end* to secrecy. Ergo...
> >
> >According to Soviet archives, at the height of its power, the KGB employed
> >1 in
> >5 citizens as informants. They HAD a ubiquitous system. It was used more
> >effectively by an organization that could collect, filter, and analyse the
> >information the best (i.e. the KGB), than by the average person.
>
> Right, and their biggest and best weapon was S-E-C-R-E-C-Y. The government
> mined data about its populace but made almost no data about the government
> available. This is what you get at the polar opposite of what I propose.
What you propose is a ban on STATUTORY secrecy, however the mere fact that there
is so much information being constantly created by every node, that only the
rich and powerful can afford the processing power to manage and filter it all,
creates STRUCTURAL form of secrecy that you cannot get around unless you mandate
that everyone have the exact same processing power, i.e. become a socialist
state.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:44 MST