From: Wei Dai (weidai@weidai.com)
Date: Tue Sep 17 2002 - 19:51:27 MDT
On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 01:20:28PM -0500, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> We can look for answers not only in technology, but in philosophy
> as well. For example, in structuring systems of business and life
> in such a way that protecting bits isn't necessary, or at least is
> less necessary and with fewer consequences of failure. Computer
> security is often approached from the point of view of assuming
> that bits will only go to those we want to have them, and whole
> business plans and governments are built on that assumption. A
> safer plan is to assume that bits will always escape no matter what
> we try to do, and so structure our life and our businesses to thrive
> under those conditions.
Should I only consider uploading or using direct neural human-computer
interfaces if I can accept the idea that all of the bits in my mind will
escape? And it's not just leakage of information. What if someone gains
"root access" to your upload or brain and starts changing your goals and
values through the Internet from across the world? Until recently, I had
always assumed that we can solve these problems, but you're suggesting
that we structure our world under the assumption that they can't be
solved. What kind of a world would it be? How do we thrive if we can't
trust our computers?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:08 MST