hal@finney.org wrote:
>
> Wei writes:
> > On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 03:45:34PM -0700, hal@finney.org wrote:
> > > I'm not sure that David's transparency would necessarily fix the IP
> > > problem, anyway. In a truly transparent world, shouldn't I be able to
> > > look over David's shoulder as he types up his latest novel? Shouldn't I
> > > have access to it in the files on his computer? And if I buy the book,
> > > shouldn't my friends be able to read it at the same time that I do,
> > > via my wearable webcam?
Sure. But to get there you need to drastically rewire some fundamental
assumptions of human psychology, sociology and economics. You can't get
there and be comfortable as long as we are hyper-competitive and largely
scarcity based in our thinking and economics. You can't get there as
long as people believe they have the right to interfere in your life and
actions just because they disagree with you even though your actions are
not depriving anyone else of their own freedom and well-being.
> >
> > I don't think that kind of total transparency is likely. People won't
> > voluntarily allow cameras into their homes that they can't turn off, or
> > allow everyone to access their hard drives across the Internet. I can't
> > really imagine that the technology necessary to achieve total
> > transparency without consent will arrive soon enough to make a difference
> > to the IP issue.
>
You assume that people will be asked for their permission and that other
people and technologies will respect that permission or that people will
develop sufficient defenses. The first two are sociological and up to
us. The last is technological. The technology is pretty much here
today to watch you and spy on you every moment of the day without you
being able to stop it unless you are pretty damn bright and persistent.
The good news is that the technology is not quite so advanced or cheap
yet that it can be so easily employed on just everybody all the time.
But we are getting there quite rapidly. Rather than stop the technology
or in addition to building techno-shields, let's also give a fair amount
of thought to how humanity has to change to live with this level of
"transparency" and see if some of those changes are doable.
> You're probably right about the relative time frames. These IP issues
> have come to the fore more abruptly than most people anticipated a few
> years ago.
>
> My understanding of Brin's ideas was that transparency would in fact
> invade the home. He did suggest that there might be specific areas where
> people would still have privacy, but he wanted to be able to make sure
> they were not commiting information crimes. This was also the motivation
> to crack down on crypto.
>
In my considered opinion, the idea of "information crimes" in most of
its forms is one of the first things that needs considerable rethinking
at this time. I don't believe there is any such valid thing as
"intellectual property" so entire categories of "information crime"
disappear almost immediately. What is really happening is that the
barriers between public and private and between individuals are cracking
as the technology broadens the reach of conscious awareness.
> > David Brin himself claims that he is interested in transparency as
> > protection against abuse by the powerful. I don't think it's the right
> > solution to that problem, but it seems like a more plausible motivation.
>
> It was my interpretation, based on some email correspondence and reading
> an early draft of his book. He mentioned concern about his own livelihood
> in the draft; I don't recall whether it made it into the final version.
> Crypto doesn't seem to be a tool for the powerful, but he spends a lot
> of time arguing against it. And as you say, there is a poor fit between
> the ostensible problem and the proposed solution, which suggests to me
> an ulterior motive.
>
Until we are in an abundance mode and have all mostly adapted
non-interference with one another and actually believe that are own
fullest growth is dependent on the fullest growth of all, there is
plenty of good reason to keep what secrets you can. There are people
out there who will not only object to your opinions but who will happily
initiate force to stop and even destroy you. We are not in paradise
yet. Perhaps paradise will never be until we are vastly different
creatures than we are today.
- samantha
> Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:51 MDT