From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun Aug 03 2003 - 17:57:05 MDT
On Sunday 03 August 2003 11:28, Lee Corbin wrote:
> Samantha correctly observes
>
> > As long as people, individually or in political groups, have the desire
> > and power to control and force others to their idea of "what is right",
> > full transparency will be equivalent to full oversight and control.
>
> How would you outline the progress you anticipate (that is,
> if you're simply not full of despondency over our prospects)?
>
I don't believe progress (of any kind) requires full transparency at this
time.
> How does our "desire" ever diminish to the point that groups
> and individuals *never* initiate the use of force (except in
> the defense of private property)? On first reading, one might
> think that you were calling for a spontaneous change in human
> nature.
>
Why spontaneous? It will certainly take time. At some point there might well
be some less problematic entity or entities that did have that level of
ability to observe us and head of problems. I just don't believe that humans
are at the stage that any one or group of them should have this power.
> > Also, "full" is not so full as long as there is no real way
> > to force the powers that be into such transparency. All
> > government groups to date do not agree that their operations
> > and proceedings should be transparent. Again, full oversight
> > and control of the citizens by the government becomes the
> > price of transparency. Again, No, thank you.
>
> I don't understand. Why would you be unwilling to pay
> this price? I think that we should indeed aim for government
> to be *fully* transparent first.
>
I don't understand why anyone even would ask this question who has observed
governments in action all their lives. Do you believe, for instance, that
having a government that promotes the "War on Drugs", would legislate what
people do in their bedrooms, talks about taking away citizenship without due
process and so on should have the power of complete observation over every
aspect of your live? Exactly what would I conceivably gain that would be
worth the very real danger to my own live and freedom?
> The two may have to go hand in hand. The western
> governments will (rightly) refuse to be transparent
> so long as formidable enemy societies have huge
> nuclear arsenals aimed at them, or so long as
> terrorists and criminals can strike fear into the
> hearts of millions. (The U.S. appears to have made
> great progress on the issue of the former.)
>
The western governments are not exactly angelic entities themselves. I could
make the same argument for myself. As long as there are people out there who
would interfere with many aspects of my life and what I believe it is
essential to accomplish if humanity is to have a future, it is right that I
should refuse to be fully transparent.
No society except Russia has "huge nuclear arsenals" at this time. What of
the government goons and terrorist that can strike fear into free people into
the hearts of millions?
> When the U.S. is just a bit more powerful, perhaps
> it can be persuaded to become completely open at the
> same moment that universal surveillance is possible.
> So, yes, Ashcroft is watching all of us to see who
> is building basement nukes, but we are all watching
> him to make sure that there are no non-public midnight
> arrests.
>
I do not believe that complete transparency is even desirable. Why? Because
there will always be legitimate disagreements among individuals and groups.
There will always be competing projects and efforts. Only an entity with no
interest in the competing efforts could have complete oversight without
unfair advantage. If all could see all then nothing would ever get done
without the agreement of a substantial number of observers. Given that the
number of rational, bright and good hearted people is a small minority I
don't see how full transparency/accountablity/feedback of all to all could
help but have a leving and stagnating affect at best.
> > > > Would you really like your Mother, Boss or neighbours
> > > > to be able to watch while you improve your prostate
> > > > health (as described in a recent post) ?
> > >
> > > I have overcome, at great cost and difficulty, the
> > > notion that I am or would be especially interesting
> > > for people to observe.
> >
> > Such trivial irrelevancies in the face of potentially creating
> > a complete Big Brother situation are utterly amazing to me.
>
> Oh for God's sake. You always surrender to some internal urge
> to harp about something. One of the issues (recall Natasha's
> input) has always been---in this thread---how one would *feel*
> about complete transparency.
>
It is a matter of perspective. Giving unlimited information to those who are
very likely to abuse it is a much more serious matter than whether someone
can see a few "naughties". The subject is too serious to not address at
its most serious levels. My I am flattered the master harpist would notice
my poor harping. :-)
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 03 2003 - 18:04:24 MDT