Zero Powers writes:
> Get used to it. Privacy is a thing of the present, but not of the future.
That's a pretty strong statement.
> I'm a firm believe that information (*all* information) wants to be free.
That's another strong statement. But no evidence forthcoming so
far. If it's a physical law, can you prove it? Do darwin in machina
runs indicate a trend towards that?
> Security and privacy are mutually exclusive when you think about it and in
1) I don't quite agree
2) So what? This clearly means there is no absolute security, ever.
> the battle between the two I'm sure security will win out in the end. I
> foresee a future where all information is available about everyone.
You can get my bits, but you have to pry them from my cold, dead
hands. You can be sure that other similiarly-minded will put up quite
a fight. Technology giveth, technology taketh away. Do not pry into
affairs of others, because you're crunchy, and good with ketchup.
> I know this can be shocking to our 20th Century sensibilities, but really it
> won't be such a bad thing to be so totally exposed when everyone is equally
> exposed. The fact that you inhaled, or cheated on a test, or posted an
Of course, some will be more exposed than the others. Hmm, where have
we heard that line before...
> embarrassingly inane rant in alt.erotica.bestiality, or fell behind in your
> Visa payments will not really matter much when it becomes a matter of public
> record that everyone else has done the same things. There is certainly a
> skeleton or two in my closet, but I wouldn't mind showing you mine if you
> had to show me yours too.
That's not logical, captain. I like my skeletons just fine where they are.
> In fact (aha! The lightbulb flashes), this may be just what we were looking
> for. A way to allow Joe Q. Public access to a near-anything-box, without
> having to fear that he will cause the dreaded gray goo problem. By Jove
> I've got it! All surveilance all the time!
Absolute surveilance is an absolute impossibility. Even given
extremely invasive measures like in Vinge's "A Deepness in the
Sky". However, theirs is a construed society. Interstellar travel yet
no nano? Yeah, sure. Only the core/periphery deus ex machina can
plausibly maintain this.
> Every act, every conversation (heck every thought, if possible) digitally
> recorded forever and accessible to everyone. Based upon a lifetime's worth
> of such data it would probably a fairly easy matter to determine who could
> and could not be trusted to have their very own near-anything-box ("NAB").
> If we can come up with a reliable Halperinesque truth machine, our fears
> about our neighbors having NAB's could be eliminated.
Luckily, the truth machine is as impossible as perfect surveillance.
> So what do you think, would you be willing to give up all privacy in
> exchange for the privilege of having access to a NAB? Would such a
> transparent society necessarily resolve our nano-related security concerns?
No way. Especially because Pandora's nano box will be opened before
BigBrother++ can be installed, and will blow away all high hopes of
anal-retentive control freaks.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:48 MDT