From: hal@finney.org
Date: Tue Nov 28 2000 - 19:16:19 MST
Slate.com writes at
http://slate.msn.com/code/explainer/explainer.asp?Show=11/28/2000&idMessage=6571
Why won't the Supreme Court allow TV cameras at Friday's hearing
on George W. Bush's appeal of the Florida Supreme Court ruling?
Because it won't allow cameras at any of their hearings. It allows
reporters to take notes but not tape proceedings, and members of
the viewing public who try to take notes will have their pencils
confiscated.
I realize that we can't expect the tradition-bound U.S. Supreme Court
to be particularly progressive. But this restriction on the flow of
information is highly disturbing. It's so out of tune with the modern
view of information as something which is easily copied, processed
and transmitted.
What will happen when someone walks into that court with the device
described today at http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,40337,00.html,
a prosthetic vision system that goes far beyond the correction possible
with glasses? This could easily take still or short video pictures
and no one would be the wiser.
Futurists have predicted more tightly integrated augmented-vision systems.
Eventually we will reach the point where everything anyone sees, hears
or experiences can be replayed for anyone else with full fidelity.
What will the Supreme Court do then?
Confiscating pencils to stop people from keeping notes! How dare they!
My memories, my experiences, are my own, and whether my memories are
stored in neural synapses or scribblings on paper is irrelevant. It's sad
to see the court clinging to a 19th century model of information when so
many important 21st century issues, from IP protection to crypto rights,
will turn on exactly that issue.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:07 MST