From: James Rogers (jamesr@best.com)
Date: Sun Dec 08 1996 - 14:58:54 MST
> In all my dealings with others, I try to be as open and revealing of my
>inner most thoughts as possible. I reject totally the idea that "white lies"
>are OK. Furthermore, I have stated many times that my desire to be able to
>communuicate with fidelity what I am is so great (and I seem not be able to
>accomplish this by standard interpersonal methods), that I would very much
>welcome a human augmentation which would allow us all to transmit and receive
>each others thoughts. I have stated that if such an augmentation were possible,
>then I would volunteer to be the first to allow others to read his thoughts. I
>believe that it would (eventually) be a much less violent and generally better
>world, if everyone could read everyone else's conscious mind whenever they
>liked. (Although if instituted suddenly it might lead to more than half the
>world's population killing each other.)
>
>My basic point here is to question the rationality of anyone valuing privacy.
>
>Let's hear what others think of this.
>
I personally would *never* give up my RIGHT to privacy, even though I will
usually share, quite openly, what I think.
I believe the real problem emerges when some individuals have more rights to
privacy than others. This creates a power imbalance. Think about the
government. Can you honestly say that you, as an individual, you can have
the same level of privacy as an agency of the government? As any military
person will tell you, intelligence (information context) is a very valuable
asset that can greatly increase the power and effectiveness of any
organization. When someone has access to all the information about you, but
you have none on them, this gives them a significant edge should a some form
of power struggle occur.
Since I don't believe that everyone will ever have the same level of
privacy, I try to retain as much as I can.
-James Rogers
jamesr@best.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:52 MST