Jason Joel Thompson wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Zero Powers" <zero_powers@hotmail.com>
>
> > > Someone who prefers powerful information to free information.
> >
> > Implying somehow that free information is less powerful than hidden info?
>
> Not necessarily, but rather that the usefulness/value/power of information
> is more important to me than its "freeness."
If it is not free (speech not beer), not open, then there are limits on
your ability to fully utilize it. If you are interested in it being
more powerful then you are interested in it being more open/free.
>
> > If so, how? Why? Examples please.
>
> Laws of scarcity. Maybe you think it would be nice if every kid on the
> planet could have a mint copy of Action Comics #1, but you can't argue that
> such a distribution wouldn't destroy an interesting market.
>
Irrelevant to the discussion. A first edition is a material artifact.
It is not information but a given physical embodiment in a particular
form produced at a particular time. It cannot be duplicated by
definition. But every kid can have a copy of the contents of that first
edition.
> Further, while there is value in information being known, there is also
> value in secrets-- and information that I know that you do not is often
> consequentially more powerful.
>
That very much depends. You hoard some of your info for your supposed
advantage. I hoard some of mine. As a result each of us expends extra
effort to duplicate some of what others have. And the information that
is unique to each of us can't be recombined to produce new and novel
and perhaps even more powerful information. The equation is not
simple.
Yes there is a place for secrets - in war or the equivalent, one's
personal information and affairs. But in peace and in non-personal
information, the maximal power and good of each of us is highly
dependent on the free flow of information.
> For instance-- I know the password to my bank account and you do not. As a
> result of the security afforded by this state of affairs, I decide to store
> my funds in said account. The password information is now powerful-- it
> grants access to my money. In the absence of my ability to keep this
> information secret, I will not store my funds in such a manner, and password
> information is suddenly valueless.
>
Your password is also not relevant. This is a key designed to protect a
personal asset. It is no more information in the sense under discussion
than your housekey is.
> >
> > > Someone who prefers personal empowerment to the empowerment of the
> > > collective.
In the world of information this boundary between you and them, or more
precisely, this chopping up of the information commons into "yours" and
"theirs" often harms each and every one of us.
> That's not really what I'm saying, but I do sort of agree with this
> conclusion. What I'm really saying is that control over information is
> desirable, as is access to information. Easily replicating information is
> desirable, as is secure information. The ability to discover secrets is
> desirable, as is the ability to create them. Information is powerful, but
> in many cases that power derives from secure ownership (as per my password
> example above, for instance.)
>
There is a vast difference between secure ownership of money or goods,
or even ownership of personal information crucial to privacy and
claiming ownership of algorithms, data and so on. Creative works are in
a slightly different category in my opinion although some of the changes
brought about by the information age also change quite a bit about
music, literary works and so on and the rights and obligations of all
involved.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:33 MDT