Re: Future Technologies of Death
Harvey Newstrom (harv@gate.net)
Thu, 1 Jan 1998 21:46:35 -0500
At 7:39pm -0500 1/1/98, Hal Finney wrote:
>Two messages illustrate the point I was trying to make about kneejerk
>reactions. Nick Bostrom proposed a hypothetical machine which would scan
>a person and determine whether they had commited a certain crime, without
>revealing any other information about them.
[....]
>Michael Lorrey replied:
[....]
>Harvey Newstrom replied:
[....]
>It seems to me that both of these messages circumvent the main point,
>which is whether this technology should be exploited (the messages made
>other points as well, but I want to focus on the central issue posed
>by Nick). The messages appear to view Nick's proposal as a threat to
>their freedom. Michael Lorrey argues that the 5th amendment protects him
>from being forced to submit to the device, while Harvey Newstrom also
>describes the legal protections in the United States and asks whether
>everyone should be forced to submit routinely to similar technologies
>available today. (He may be speaking rhetorically and in fact arguing
>that we should not have to do so.)
I'm not sure why you think we have circumvented the main point. Not only
did we answer, but you summarized our answers pretty well. You even givr
explainations for our answers. I'm not sure how we could make our answers
any more clear. We don't want anyone scanning us against our will. Doing
anything to us against our will is a threat to our freedom.
You seem to propose a voluntary system where each person can choose whether
to be scanned or not. But when we choose an answer different than yours,
you suggest that our answers are less valid and that everyone should choose
the same answer. This does not sound like an argument for a voluntary
system of personal choice.
(Happy New Year: One Year Closer to the Future!)
__
Harvey Newstrom (harv@gate.net)