From: Eugen Leitl (eugen@leitl.org)
Date: Wed Oct 16 2002 - 14:01:11 MDT
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, natashavita@earthlink.net wrote:
> Chris Peterson spoke ardently in support of "open source" at a time
> when consumers blasted a "toothless deal" proposed on Microsoft for
> its "source code".
Open source is a good thing. It fills an important niche which is not
occupied by commercial software. I'll freely admit being somewhat of a
zealot here, having been using it since 1989, or so, and lately
exclusively.
> Jim Halperin writes _The Truth Machine_. "Such a machine, for example,
> would facilitate a totally redesigned criminal justice system, and
> politicians would have to be extremely honest and forthright, as would
> society as a whole. In short, it would completely change civilization
> as we know it--a paradigm shift of epic proportions." (Paul M.
> Heffernan)
I don't think such a machine is really possible. Lying does involve
specific activity patterns in the brain, but this looks like something
requiring expensive hardware, extensive subject-specific calibration, and
have a high false positives rate. The technician would also be a
vulnerable element in the loop.
Moreover, people in power would find ways to not expose their internals to
the world. The deployment of a truth machine would warp the shape of the
society around it, instead of making things as a whole more transparent.
Those low in the hierarchy will be made sure to be screened at every
opportunity. Consider drug tests. Is this something a CEO would do, unless
she knows she's safe, and it's good for the worker morale? Shit, no.
> We have debated the idea of living in a world in which everyone tells the
> truth. An "I will if you will" scenario.
I have no idea what would happen to society if lying became transparent.
For everybody, every time. It is something profoundly unnatural to all
living things. Chimps cheat. Everybody does.
> How do we measure privacy in a psychology of open source and truth?
Open source has objective advantages. It's pants-down full disclosure,
tends to provide systems that earlier into their life cycle have higher
quality, less bugs, and discourages pointless innovation (i.e. change for
the sake of profit maximization). It encourages more benign forms of
cooperation, fostering a form of 'digital communism' and prestige
accounting by low-cost altruism.
I don't see how else it chimes in with 'truth'.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:37 MST