'What is your name?' 'Zero Powers.' 'Do you deny having written the
following?':
> >It seems that even if your system works
> >flawlessly, the result is simple total surveilance a la Brin, where the
> >cameras are everywhere and anyone who wants to can look at any camera at
> >any time to find out what you're up to right now.
>
> Yep, that's pretty much the idea.
I only mentioned it to show that I had a very clear idea of what you were
referring to, after all.
> I never said it would be a "simple system." It will likely take the help of
> strong AI and nanotech.
I see. Allow me to refine my argument then.
You seem to agree with me that a Whole Lot of Data Crunching would be
necessary to make this system viable. Now, clearly, if I have access to a
data-cruncher and you don't, even if we both have access to all the
cameras, I'm getting a lot more use out of the system than you are.
Indeed, without a data-cruncher, the system is almost useless to you in
comparison to its utility to me. This point can be generalized: if I can
crunch data better than you can, then I'll get more use out of the system
than you can.
But let's recall how this point came up in the first place. The assertion
was that this system would be more useful to someone with more power than
it would to someone with less power. The reason given was because the
people with more power would be able to crunch data better, and thereby
get more use out of the system. You countered that people wouldn't have
to crunch the data at all. But, clearly, SOMEONE has to crunch the data.
If you'd have it that a strong AI would do the work, fine, but strong AIs
require fast processors as their substrate. Whoever owns the processors
owns the results which this AI would put out. This someone will be the
powerful, and not the weak.
> In a truly transparent society there would be no "despots" unless we the
> people collectively decided to turn our fates over to a despot. I don't
> know about you, but I ain't voting for any despots anytime soon.
"But I am your king!" "Well, I didn't vote for you."
Look, I'm trying to be civil here, but I can't make any sense of this
claim. How the hell do you think despots get to power, anyway? By
popular vote? They sure as hell don't go around knocking on doors and
kissing babies and asking for your support. Instead, they kick someone's
ass, and then make the plausible claim that they'll kick the ass of anyone
who tries to harm them. Nobody "turns their fates over to a despot."
They simply don't rise up, out of fear that they'll be squashed like a bug
if they do.
Despotism doesn't, at any step of the picture, rely on secrecy in any way
whatsoever. On the contrary, perfect transparency is in the despot's best
interests. That way you can be quite confident that when the despot
claims that he'll squash you like a bug, he *really will* squash you like
a bug. Knowing that someone is a despot does not help you get rid of the
despot in any way whatsoever.
-Dan
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:45 MDT