From: Erik Sayle (lists@thecri.org)
Date: Wed Apr 30 2003 - 16:02:27 MDT
Samantha Atkins wrote:
> 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:
An alternative to a police state is Anarchy by many gods. This might be the
worst of all possible options. When each of us can kill a million people
with technology in an instant, people will beg for order.
In terms of a police state, this can happen in many different ways, from
rather fair to totalitarian. I actually advocate a police state where the
police are all of us, rather than the government. The power of Transparency
is distributed as much as possible, so as to not allow one small group to
control everything. I think the term police state and concept are at one end
of the spectrum . I would advocate a self policed system with liberal
attitudes towards self expression, freedom, and some privacy, but with
extreme prejudice towwards those that would kill or try to opress others.
Ideally, and realistically, I think a system could occur that allows
individuals to do many things that they choose as long as they do not
directly harm others. I live in San Francisco where self expression is
probably the highest anywhere in the world, this occurs becuase of a
constitution that protects individuals.
So I am not advocating a "police state" rather a self policed distributed
democracy witha strong constitution perhaps.
> 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.
We do not have Universal Transparency now, we have more than most countries,
but much less than could be possible. The trend clearly is towards
transparency and distributed power. We are more free than our ancestors of
200 years ago, and they are better than 1000 years ago. Thereality of today
should not stop us from progressing forwards.
>
> 2) There is no clear way to force compliance, especially on the
> part of government;
>
Perhaps,
> 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
>
The goal as I see it is to create a government that is as just as possible.
I doubt any system could be 100% effective, so a brutal government, even
with great powers of surveillance would be a target of many powerful gods
attempting to destroy it. America is more just than most countries, so even
today while many of its citizens have great power, few attempt to destroy
it. Governments do not atomatically have to be coercive and oppresive. A
benign government that tries to spread good will to all, and stop
terrorists, would probably suffer less attacks (and therefore be more fit)
than a government with bad laws.
> 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?
>
Decision makers are often more enlightened than the rest of the public. Not
all decision makers, but many. Even though it appears that there is a bit of
a theocracy right now, there are many republicans who would probably give
their lives to prevent an American Theocracy. I have some friends who served
in the Military, they put their lives on the line for Truth Freedom and the
American way (or is that Superman), at any rate, they are NOT Christian
warriors.
I have a great concern that the present or future administration will try to
persecute people who are involved in sex and drugs. However, I think that it
would be tough if more transparency and honesty occured, becuase then we
would see that our leaders did these things as well (Republicans are into
BDSM much more than democrats!). Larry Flint forced transparency on the
Government.
Radical innovation needs to be controlled! It has gotten us this far, put
just like a tree or animals growth, there usually is some phase of
maturation. Radical innovation is equivalent to uncontrolled growth =
cancer. There is enogh labs and people working on innovation today that it
needs little help to continue.
> There is nothing "fair and just" about a police state. Not ever.
A semi fair and semi just tranparent democracy is better than the
alternative, a world of anarchy, where individuals hold the power of killing
in their hands. I like Government in some ways, police have come to my
rescue when other threatened me with violence.
The main question I ask myself is "How do we protect ourselves from weapons
of mass destruction"? The main answer I come up with involves more
surveillance, it can be a police state, enforced on us, or it can be a self
policed system with as much justice as possible while still providing
security.
Erik
>
>
> - samantha
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 30 2003 - 16:12:55 MDT