From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Apr 30 2003 - 11:04:22 MDT
Erik Sayle wrote:
>
> 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.
If the police state is coming "whether we like it or not" then
universal transparency (universal surveillance) has serious
problems as you partially touched upon. These include:
1) It will not be universal in that the powers that be will not
be subject to it. Look how easily the current US administration
threw out or ignores many existing oversight laws.
2) There is no clear way to force compliance, especially on the
part of government;
3) Universal surveillance = Universal Enforcement/Control -
there is no way to "opt out" of bad law if surveillance is
total. There is no way to do an uprising against an unjust
government as it will be seen and squashed in its weak/early
stages so
4) Universal surveillance = universal stagnation - besides the
above the laws will most likely be made by powered interests
and/or the people and/or arbitrary doctrines (theocracy anyone).
Universal surveillance would be workable only if all humans, at
least all decision makers were enlightened. This is clearly not
the case and not doable. Given democracy + universal
surveillance the result is a lowest common denominator effect of
allowed behavior. Any group that fears any change/innovation
and can sway the deciding parties gets to dictate to all. Where
will radical innovation and change come from in such a state?
There is nothing "fair and just" about a police state. Not ever.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 30 2003 - 11:07:23 MDT