From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Fri Dec 27 2002 - 15:10:09 MST
-Eugen wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2002, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>
>> The methods you advocate are consistent with a siege mentality.
>
> Regardless what they're consistent with, they are methods *which
> work*.
### So how will radiation sensors help you deal with dirty bombs, if at the
same time you are making strenuous efforts to respect the privacy of the
bomb makers?
-----
>
> Constant vigilance is what automation is for. There's nothing very
> heroic in a distributed society. The defense is purely passive; and
> hence will work regardless of whatever you're deploying. As long as
> you're not dropping ecovorous nanoplagues, or planet crackers.
### American Indians were pretty distributed and see what happened to them.
-----------
>
> Today some 30 people in a government building were blown up in Grozny
> by two suicide bombers, driving a jeep, and a truck loaded with
> explosive. The entire building has been destroyed.
>
> Now consider eGovernment. No customers, no central office. What is
> there to blow up? Nothing. There's even nothing to DoS in a P2P based
> infrastructure. You can't even find the physical location of the
> clerk, until she reveals it herself. Now here's the cleanest solution
> ever.
### Why should a smart terrorist waste time on symbols, Federal Buildings,
Pentagons, and WTC's, if with a sniper gun he can bring the whole capital to
its knees before being finally caught (not by sniper sensors, but by snoops,
spooks, snitches, and ubiquitous surveillance).
-------
>
>> for unpredictable dangers, rearranging your lifestyle to suit them.
>
> That's the whole point: the dangers are predictable. Somebody will
> launch attacks against assemblies of people, or assemblies of
> hardware. Remove the target, and there is nothing to attack. Make an
> audit over the landscape (not much to audit in Gobi, Serengeti, the
> Pacific, etc). Look at concentrations of people, large fluxes, high
> potential energy, etc. It isn't rocket science.
### It reminds of an old cure for the sniffles - cut off your nose.
Sometimes you have to buckle before the inevitable and change your lifestyle
(e.g. start bathing to get rid of fleas, to reduce the risk of the plague),
but sometimes it's enough to kill the rats.
BTW, I am not *against* decentralization and agent detection - I strongly
support the distributed suburban lifestyle, but I don't think it's enough.
------------
>
>> There is another strategy - to boldly go and attack the attacker. The
>
> Yeah, to boldly go, and shoot yourself in the foot.
>
>> choice of the correct strategy, or the mixture of the two, will be
>> dictated by an analysis of all relevant information, including the
>> physical nature of the threat, available means of social
>> organization, and information processing and availability.
>
> Of course. People will still track fissibles and fissible precursors,
> as well as the usual suspects in chem and bio production.
### Good. Here we agree. Worldwide universal surveillance of nuclear and
biotech materials, technologies, and manpower. Soon nano to be added.
------------
>
> It's just it's not going to work. Tracking is never quantitative, and
> as such can only be a supportive solution. And tracking has to end
> where privacy starts. Because that price tag is a bit too much to
> afford.
### Yes, yes, I know. How many QALY, from a Rawlsian perspective, are you
willing to pay for your privacy?
-----------
>
> How much rope will I give the feds? Zero. Not an inch. Over my cold
> body.
### Once the Neo-Varioloid Anthrax IIv.3.1 reaches your decentralized abode
it will be quite cold, indeed.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:55 MST