>From: Dan Fabulich <email@example.com>
> > How many times can I say it? There will be no need for you to crunch
> > the data. The mere fact that it is being recorded for retrieval later
> > necessary* will get the job done.
>No, it won't. Consider the despotism scenario I drew in my earlier post.
>Both you and the despot are under total surveilance. However, he can
>analyze the data to detect 'wrongdoing' instantly. You cannot. You can
>see that he is a despot, and that he is fully capable of squashing you
>like a bug. You may know lots of personal details about this despot. Does
>that help you in any way? It has obviously helped the despot.
1. There will be no despots. See my earlier post.
2. It doesn't take much computational ability to "detect wrongdoing." I
look at my screen - I see you slit a child's throat - I compute: "Hey that
looks like wrongdoing." And I call the cops.
3. You are assuming that computational power will make a big difference. I
don't see why it should. The database will be searched by the server. My
machine (the client) will merely display the results. If the goal is
two-way power proportional transparency the rule should be that the "despot"
would have to search the same servers as the lumpen masses.
"I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:44 MDT