From: Eugen Leitl (eugen@leitl.org)
Date: Thu Oct 17 2002 - 08:04:17 MDT
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, spike66 wrote:
> What is it that you dread, Gene? Abused by who?
By those in power.
> The government? As before, I presupposed you would
By those who have access to that data, as opposed to those who don't. Even
if given access to this data, a large group will be at a disadvantage vs.
a small elite group derived from old power.
> compensate away much of the government's power as
> transparency increased. This is a critical point.
1) Please describe a viable implmentation route (how to get there from here)
2) Please describe a sustainable homeostasis system (how to stay there
once we get there)
> No government can be trusted with the power that
> transparency would provide.
I agree. Because you can't really get rid of government in immediate
future, I recommend to scrap the idea of going transparent.
> In the case of the Virginia sniper, the government's
> role would be almost superfluous, for a band of armed
> citizens would have taken him out by now.
And a good number of innocents along the way, nevermind the friendly
fire. A vigilante posse is not something established overnight.
> > Technology is an asymmetrical enabler, since favouring centralism. Why
> > giving up privacy, which is irreversible, in face of statistically
> > insignificant threats? The mind boggles.
>
> I think of them as statistically significant opportunities.
> I like asymmetrical enablers. I tend to be on the side that
> is always asymmetrically enabled. spike
Sure, no one wants to be on the loser's side.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:38 MST