From: hal@finney.org
Date: Sun Feb 04 2001 - 15:04:55 MST
Looking forward, we see two trends. The one mentioned in this thread
is that electronic communications will become more pervasive and
more difficult for law enforcement to monitor. The one mentioned in
another thread is that physical surveillance will become easier and more
universal. Let's speculate on the effects if these two trends continue.
Most physical crimes that we face today would become essentially
impossible to commit without being caught. Anything that involves leaving
your house will put you under serveillance. You have no expectation
of privacy in public places and gradually the fields of view of all
the cameras in the world will become essentially universal. Robbery,
assault, murder in all their variations will be performed in public view.
Some physical crimes might still be possible, if they involve subtle
manipulations. You might be able to get away with poisoning someone
or releasing some deadly virus, without your actions being noticeably
suspicious. You might also be able to shoot someone from concealment
in some cases. And of course some criminals don't mind being caught,
or even kill themselves in the act. But the vast majority of crime
would be eliminated.
At the same time, information-based "crimes" would flourish. It will be
essentially impossible to keep information from spreading. This would
include information piracy of videos, music and books. It would also
cover "forbidden" information like how to make bombs, but since you
can't use the bombs without being caught, that won't matter much.
Drugs are an interesting case. On the one hand, drug smuggling and sales
would be extremely difficult due to physical surveillance. But on the
other hand, information about growing and manufacturing drugs would
be widely available. We might see a shift towards drugs which can
be produced and consumed at home. Drug dealing would no longer be
big business, but drug use might continue at levels similar to the
present day.
One big question is whether this situation would be stable. There seems
to be an inherent contradiction in an Orwellian physical world where
social controls are nearly 100% effective existing beside a libertarian
virtual world where there are almost no controls whatsoever.
We might see a desire to extend physical control into the virtual world,
as with proposals that people submit to surveillance of their online
activities, use encryption which can be broken by the government, etc.
In recent years we have been moving away from these proposals, but this
could change.
Or, we could see that the libertarian electronic world undermines
the authoritative physical one, as more of the economy becomes based
on information. People would engage in economic transactions which the
physical world can't monitor, and more importantly, can't tax. This was
the original cypherpunk model but it remains to be seen whether this
could actually work.
Looking out farther, we have to throw nanotech into the mix, which would
theoretically expand the range of things you could construct at home using
just information. And before that we will be faced with "bathtub biotech"
which is on the horizon if not here already, allowing people to cook up
their own biotech cocktails at home using information found on the net.
How do you feel about this Orwell/libertarian world? Does the existence
of virtual freedom compensate for the possibility of increased social
control outside your home? And do you think it would be stable, or
would one side or the other win out?
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:05:36 MST