From: Robert Coyote (coyyote@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Sep 14 2001 - 15:47:07 MDT
how's this for a counter meme
An open society has its costs, Americans never expect to have freedom for
free, however defending the Freedoms that make this Great Country the
beacon of liberty for all the world cannot be had by destroying those very
freedoms we cherish, and is a self inflicted wound to the American spirit.We
shall not be intimidated into destroying those freedoms hard won with blood
and sacrifice, that we solemnly vow to protect.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anders Sandberg" <asa@nada.kth.se>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: Sen. Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) called for a global
prohibition on encryption
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 12:17:39PM -0700, J. R. Molloy wrote:
> > From: "Anders Sandberg" <asa@nada.kth.se>
> > > I consider that the most extropic way of handling these technologies.
> >
> > Me too. But since "we now are essentially back to square one with the
clipper
> > chip," the most extropic alternative available to us (and our allies)
_now_ is
> > to infiltrate that "select controlling group" that you mentioned,
because it
> > is very unlikely that we'll be able to persuade politicians to give
clipper
> > chips equivalent user control to that enjoyed by owners of automobiles.
So, if
> > you and Max More were on that "select controlling group" (and a
controlling
> > group of some sort will almost certainly emerge to fill the vacuum of
power),
> > why then I'd feel we're moving in the correct direction. Of course, "the
ideal
> > controller is nobody" -- but you know that is not going to happen.
>
> You are falling into a deterministic trap here: since the idea is making
> rounds again you believe it will become a bill, that bill is going to
> get passed and implemented. But remember that the clipper chip was
> *crushed*. The fact that this idea was defeated once means that it is
> actually going to have a harder time today than it would if it was an
> entirely new concept with a clear background. Sure, it will get a lot of
> help from the current mood, but it is not an irresistible power.
>
> Although my ambitious side does like the idea of me and Max being part
> of the controlling group - in this case I guess that would be NIST, NSA
> or some high level court - "infiltrating" them is of course a total pipe
> dream. You won't get a chance to control a technology if you lie about
> your intentions to the surrounding administration. Remember, in our kind
> of society you actually have to give reasons for your actions when you
> do them as part of an administration.
>
> A far more realistic approach to stop this technology is to raise hell
> about it - explain to proponents why it won't work and why it will have
> nasty side effects, get the non-initiated to understand what is wrong
> with it and why it should not be supported. Convince other nations to
> not accept the standard. Develop other technologies that makes even the
> introduction of the technology irrelevant. If it is passed, then work
> against the laws, even to the point of civil disobedience.
>
> Notice that this is messy, real world things that have to be done. There
> is no way of achiving it by wishing for the technology to be in wise
> hands (and mine definitely aren't; I think I could make a fairly nasty
> dictator a la Trevor Goodchild if I got the chance - don't let me!).
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
> asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/
> GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:38 MST