From: Erik Sayle (lists@thecri.org)
Date: Mon Apr 28 2003 - 21:35:36 MDT
Phil Osborn wrote:
> The reason for the new system is pretty much as they
> have stated it, but a little more radical. Basically,
> they accept Conrad Schnieker's hypothesis about the
> exponentially rising curve of cheap weapons of
> annihilation - binary viruses, etc., which Conrad, one
> of the originators of "nanotechnology" as a focused
> movement and theory, stated in the late '70's. As
> Conrad told me then, the only likely solution that
> will enable a high-tech civilization to survive
> long-term is universal surveillance. Check out the
> flood of "tranparency" sites that have recently
> emerged, following Brin's book. Same idea. The
> alternative - that there is no solution - resolves
> Fermi's hypothesis.
I guess the website that I am part of would have to be one of those
websites!
It is http://www.universaltransparency.org
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now, I have obviously given this great thought, and I think that there is
probably some midway point that would work. For example, one of many
possible implementations would be a society where there was great Universal
Transparency wherever there are advanced technologies like nano or biotech
or even some easier techs. But from there, we could have refuges where
privacy was respected to different levels. For example, a commons where
everyone enters and is checked at the door, like nightclubs today where they
have metal detectors. Inside this common area, most anything goes, the laws
are liberal, and there are places where there are no cameras. Perhaps we
would live in apartments that have a private room that we can take nothing
into that could be weaponized.
As often is the case, both sides will probably need to compromise. Privacy
advocates have to realize that privacy can be abused, transparency advocates
and the general public (like 80% of Americans, who have "nothing to hide" )
have to appreciate that privacy is not just used to hide illegal things.
Personally, I think that if laws were rewritten to decriminalize and
destigmatize sex, drugs, gambling and other personal choice issues, then
transparency would be much easier to implement. Of course, the present
administration is moving in the other direction, so that is not too good a
sign! Even if these laws were rewritten, there are other reasons for
privacy, or other concerns that need to be addressed.
The main problem I see it today is that privacy advocates are not willing to
give an inch on privacy, but whether we like it or not, the police state is
coming. Rather than fight it, we should work to make it fair and just, as it
is a train that we cannot stop, nor should we as it serves a purpose, to
catch Terrorists etc.
But that is what we must keep our leaders responsible for. Let them mess
with Terrorists. But do not let them lump drug dealers and sodomizers into
that group. "We must protect our children" must be used carefully, against
"real" terrorists, not anybody the administration feels like demonizing.
It is easy to say that anyone who does not agree with us is a terrorist, and
the fact that they fight back makes them terrorists. It is easy to abuse,
will our other war on drugs become a second front, with massive civil
liberties infringement upon ~20% of the Earth population. Drug users
terrorists? They have TV ads now making headway in that direction. Columbia,
Peru, Brazil, etc are places that nobody seems to think about, but we are
very involved in them.
At any rate, that is why we have the website, a lot of discussion *should*
happen to enable us to find the right path. Unfortunately, many people seem
to think it is too abstract or farfetched an idea to consider - that the
surveillance state is coming.
It should not become a police state, it should become perhaps community
policing.
Erik Sayle
> The time frame is the problem. Conrad and I, both
> anarcho-capitalists, agreed that the state would
> ultimately not be able to solve the problem. "Who
> guards the guards?" Etc. Only a competitive system
> centered around the rational costs of risk and risk
> management, involving insurance companies primarilly,
> would be able to properly balance marginal returns to
> optimize such a system long term.
>
> However, we are not there. Our anarcho-capitalist
> utopia is decades off, and the threat of annihilation
> is a bit closer. Not that Bush and Co. are likely to
> be closet anarcho-capitalists... So, they use the
> hammer they do have, the U.S. coercive military might.
>
> However, they're not planning a new Roman empire, as
> far as I can tell. Instead, they've used Afganistan
> and now Iraq as demonstrations to the world as to
> intent, capability, resolve... The rest of the world
> can join the winning team or take their chances.
>
> So, based on the Chronkite hosted Armaggedon series
> and a host of other clearly orchastrated media events,
> here it what to expect:
>
> Bush & Co. will manipulate events to suck the majority
> of the important world powers - the so-called "good
> guys," all more or less democracies or otherwise
> certifiable as "friendly" - into a coalition that will
> back a joint force that will go into any country,
> anywhere, anytime, if it is deemed necessary to clear
> out terrorist camps. A few more examples may be made
> - N. Korea is waving a red flag with a huge "target me
> now" ideogram etched across, and they may fulfil their
> own prophecy, altho it may be the Chinese, who want
> the world to know that THEY are not irresponsible
> terrorists (even if they are, whenever they think they
> can get away with it) and are macho enough to do their
> part for the new world order, not just wait for the
> U.S. to run everything.
>
> So it may well go. The real bad guys like Saddam will
> fall all over themselves to invite the World Police
> ("World Security Forces?" - somebody come up with a
> catchy name here...) inspectors in to verify that THEY
> don't have any terrorists mixing up variants of SARS,
> etc. - if they believe that the alternative is what
> happened to Saddam.
>
> So, the problem that Conrad identified may actually be
> solved, short term, altho the solution will bring its
> own serious problems.
>
> Given that we're not likely to stop this from
> happening if it's in the works, the question becomes
> how to best deal with it and the new problems it will
> introduce.
>
> Possibilities:
>
> The "nanocorp" movement is apparently growing like
> wildfire and may quickly become international. I have
> pushed something similar for decades now, based on the
> "trust," however, instead of the corporation. Either
> way, there is and will be a demand for nano-support,
> nano-infrastructure, etc., which could involve easilly
> standardized contracts, such as the universal social
> contract that I have suggested, which could become a
> world-unifying standard, and a grass-roots,
> self-sustaining base from which to oppose the top-down
> corporatization of the world that will try to take
> advantage of this new world order. Not so much to
> oppose it, however, as to offer solutions not
> available to top-down structures.
>
> Eg., the problem that Bush & Co. are faced with now re
> the possibility that "democracy" in Iraq may well mean
> another Iran, with enforced Shiite culture, forced on
> all other groups in Iraq. How to deal with this and a
> host of similar problems? How about a Swiss model
> carried down to the individual level, with a social
> contract to establish a base-line on which to build
> local solutions? Perhaps most Shiites and other
> potential democratic dictatorial groups would be
> satisfied to impose their law on their own believers,
> if a system were universally available to resolve
> disputes outside the group in an equitable manner.
> This may be more palatable if the alternative is a mix
> of ongoing civil war and outside rule by the U.S.
> Unlike "political" solutions per se, a social contract
> based system would be fueled by the economic
> advantages to the signatories, such as a means of
> reducing risk enormously in dealing with trading
> partners worldwide. Yet it could be used to solve a
> host of political problems as a bonus.
>
> So, we may not really be any worse off due to Bush &
> Co., yet..., altho the civil rights violations
> domestically as well as the wierd situation re "enemy
> combatants" are certainly very scary and will have to
> be resolved. I put some limited faith in our judicial
> system to ultimately straighten that out into
> something a little more consistent with our Bill of
> Rights, at least. The world may actually be safer for
> a decade or two due to Bush & Co./World Police Force,
> altho there is always the risk that some of the
> terrorist types may make a major move before they are
> rooted out.
>
> I.e., we may have a breather here in which to figure
> out the real solutions.
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 28 2003 - 21:49:03 MDT