David Brin replied:
>Alas, I find Robin's question opaque. I read it several times and can see
>he was trying to set me a clear question, but it just doesn't register.
>What, specifically, is he trying to ask. Help?
Sorry to be opaque, let me elaborate. Your basic argument appears to
be that it is inevitable that "they" will be able to watch "us", but
that we may be able now to choose whether we watch them. Given your
assumptions, your anti-privacy answer is obvious -- of course, let us
watch them. But what if you are dead wrong about your assumptions?
If it were inevitable that we could not watch them, but open to choice
whether they could watch us, the obvious choice would be pro-privacy
-- let them not watch us.
Given that your assumptions about what is and isn't likely to be up
for grabs matter this much, you need to give explicit arguments to
defend these assumptions. I'm not saying you're wrong - just undefended.
>Robin, I do not insist that these are the only choices. I maintain only
>that the mighty have a window of opportunity in which they MAY be able to
>set up barriers against light. Barriers that you and I cannot hope to
>match, no matter how many PGP programs the cypherpunks tout. WE will live
>in glass houses, like it or not.
I will join your crusade, *if* you can convince me that you have
correctly identified here what is open to change here and what is not.
Robin D. Hanson hanson@hss.caltech.edu http://hss.caltech.edu/~hanson/