ULE: covert vs overt

From: Michael Wiik (mwiik@messagenet.com)
Date: Tue Apr 17 2001 - 11:32:33 MDT

ULE = ubiquitous law enforcement

Let's assume as a given that within a short number of years, say maybe
20, that the capability of a single individual to cause widespread havoc
will will be tremendously increased from what's possible today. Henious
crimes will be like the news snippets in a Halperin novel. In short,
we'll have to monitor every molecule. Failure to do so could result in
the extinction of the human race.

Given this assumption, what is the effectiveness of covert as opposed to
overt monitoring? Which is more prone to abuse?

I see extropian/libertarian choices as:

1) Continue opposition to the whole 'Transparent Society' concept,
forcing monitoring to be covert. Abuses and unaccountability are
implicitly encouraged.

2) Embrace overt monitoring, and (to borrow a theme from Microsoft)
extend it, by demanding LE resources be taken away from victimless vice
crimes and applied directly to anti-terrorism efforts. This might also
include national policy changes to avoid pissing off half the world.

My belief is that the 2nd approach would result in maximum
accountability and more actual liberty. However I welcome other choices
or arguments as to why my premises are incorrect.


Michael Wiik
Messagenet Communications Research
Washington DC Area Internet and WWW Consultants

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:46 MDT