Robin writes:
> I view Brin as the opposite of an enemy. Brin is IMHO what we
> need much more of: he is smart, thoughtful, articulate, eager for
> criticism, a consequentialist on policy, and takes seriously the
> technologies we envision. I might disagree with Brin on some details
> of privacy policy, but those are far from fundamental issues for me.
I agree with part of this. David Brin does seem to be reasonably smart,
thoughtful and articulate (although to be honest I find most of his
published argumentation to be weak). I don't know whether he is truly
eager for criticism; it's not clear to me that any of his positions
have changed as a result of the considerable criticism he has received.
Look at his response John Clark quoted here on December 16, 1996:
>Utter sophistry! [...] philosophical arm-wavings [...]
>paranoid little boys [...] drivel [...] liars [...]
>secrecy-fetishists [...] I don't give a flying %^&$%^ [...]
>profound naivete [...] ignorance [...] SHUT UP!
John's exchange with David, which grew increasingly harsh and sarcastic
on both sides, was obviously unwelcome criticism.
He does take the issues seriously, which is more than you can say for
most people. As for consequentialism, I think he has boiled it down
to a caricature of blind ideology opposing reasoned pragmatism. I view
ideology as reliance on deeply rooted principles to provide a heuristic
guide with long-term value on complex issues.
My problems with David Brin include his lack of fairness and objectivity,
and his tendency towards polemics and mischaracterizing his opponents.
Look at this interview by CNN, which he links to from his site at
www.kithrup.com/brin. From
http://cnnfn.cnn.com/2000/03/10/electronic/q_brin_intv/, the first
question:
Q. As you survey the privacy landscape today, how do you feel about
what you see?
A. I get irked when I see a premature coalescence around an unsupported
cliche, like the one pushed by both wings of the strong privacy
movement -- that our freedom, security, and safety will be enhanced by
preventing other people from knowing things. At root it's a despotic
and rather mean-minded approach. It's been tried by tyrants, kings,
and priests, but it's not how we achieved the most successful human
civilization in history. The trick we use, instead, is making sure
no one can escape accountability.
Right there we see him demonizing the opposition, claiming that support
of privacy is a "despotic and rather mean-minded approach". This is
not only a harsh and unjustified criticism, it borders on the absurd.
Privacy supporters as despots? The "Strong Privacy" cypherpunk position
(which is what he implied he was most opposed to, in a message here also
on December 16) is not based on forcing anyone to do anything. They only
want to be allowed to run their software and work on their technology.
It's the opposite of despotism.
I am worried by someone who combines an absence of rhetorical fairness
with a position that implies restrictions on access to privacy technology.
The one saving grace, to be honest, is that I find him so (excuse the
word) transparent and unpersuasive that I hope that in the end he won't
have much influence.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:33 MDT