From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Oct 16 2002 - 00:09:34 MDT
spike66 wrote:
> FutureQ wrote:
>
>>
>> spike66 wrote:
>>
>>> Total, thorough, mutual transparency.
>>> Information wants to be freeeee! spike
>>
>>
>> I totally transparently agree! Of course this will one day mean
>> someone watching
>> us all as we are having sex too. Gee, it'll turn us all into porn stars!
>
>
> Only if you do it outdoors, FutureQ. I maintain
> that our front door can and should form the dividing
> line between private and public life. In-home privacy
> is sacred, even to the staunch transparency advocate.
>
> To some degree, we would voluntarily extend that curtain
> of privacy to our offices and of course public restrooms,
> locker rooms, etc. spike
>
By the same logic that made transparency seem good elsewhere we
shouldn't mind too much if "duly authorized" personal use
technology *now* available to look right through our walls and
observing anything they feel justified in observing. The logic
does not stop at your door. Unfortunately. I would also point
out that even "limited" transparency like the above utterly
removes the ability to organize mount any serious opposition to
the current rulers. It nearly removes the ability to
successfully opt-out. Why would you want this kind of power in
the hands of those folks who gave you whatever list of things
you find most odious about the powers that be today?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:36 MST