Robert Bradbury wrote:
The freedom to experiment with speech (as in covert, encrypted, secure
speech) and action (as in the liberty to setup trust networks independent
of external observation or monitoring) would seem to be an assault to
the rights of individuals to guarantee their own personal security
and autonomy. [I.e. if *you* or your designated security force
(presumably a government) *cannot* monitor *and* guarantee the
trustability of external agents (potentially requiring authoritarian
measures) then is the "rule of law" worth the paper it is printed
on and is the "decentralization of power" not fundamentally unextropic?
### You have a very good point here. Secrecy, leading to a lack of
accountability, in large organizations (governements, but also informal
networks, large companies, the Cosa Nostra), can be dangerous for
individuals.
The Open Society principle is best implemented within a general framework of
open flow of information, significantly reducing organizations' capability
to maintain secrecy. Decentralization of power is acceptable as long as all
power nodes are open to public scrutiny.
Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD
smigrodzkir@msx.upmc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:12 MDT