[p2p-research] Drone hacking

[Andy Robinson]

This discussion is rapidly becoming pointless.  The basic points are being
addressed by the same unsupported assertions repeated over and over.  "J"
doubtless realises we're onto him and the game is up.  He just keeps giving
us more of the same.  The substantive objections are not being addressed,
it's the same arguments time and again.  The crucial point is made, however:
he admits that his entire edifice is based on the delusion of a separation
of science from other kinds of knowledge.

The only thing I think is worth commenting on right now, is this:

"my dog doesn't worry about privacy from me.  I protect it, walk with it, be
its companion, feed it, take it out to pee.  If I was the dog, I don't think
I'd care very much about privacy... I don't see why I'd care.  I don't care
now.  The only threat is from other people...not from machines.  If machines
wish to kill us, I suspect others will wish to protect us...  We can easily
stop most crime now by rfiding all vehicles and making all money
electronic...  Fearing governments is a bit 20th century Orwell was a
brilliant writer and an interesting guy, but the gig is sort of up." (Ryan)

I guess this proves the point that computers will soon be smarter than
humans, because I remain astounded that humans can be so incorrigibly *
stupid*.  Ryan, you evidently have no idea how states actually work.  They
are not, and never have been, benevolent protectors.  Nobody in political
theory seriously believes that unconstrained states able to override
constraint by society and/or individuals are benevolent protectors - not
Locke, not Marx, not Burke.  I'm not going to waste time debating how far
totalitarianism reduces 'crime', but suffiice to say it always drastically
increases the far more serious 'crimes' and legalised atrocities of the
powerful.  Now, go away, read about Cointelpro, read about MOVE, read about
destabilisation campaigns, read about the strategy of tension in Italy, read
about the abduction of Aristide in 2004, read about how the police behaved
in St. Paul's last year, read about Mumia, read about neoliberal
restructuring, then read about the history of the genocide of Native
Americans, colonialism, the slave trade, the Nazis, the rise of Stalinism,
and come back and tell us if you still think states are benevolent
guardians.

Put simply - if they aren't afraid of us jamming their functioning and they
don't need us to do their work (or fighting etc) for them, *they don't need
us*.  And there is no reason for them to benevolently protect us rather than
treat us as disposable commodities, or worse, as vermin.  I don't know where
you've picked up your rather silly illusion that they exist to protect us
and will carry on being 'benevolent' even if they have no need whatsoever to
be.  But I'm pretty sure it has to do with *identification with the
oppressor* (look it up).  Don't bother coming back with the retort that you
don't "feel" oppressed either, because that is also part of the same
identification.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20091224/71f15b33/attachment.html>