And Mr. Lewis said CF-Community was full of juvenile chatter... well maybe but this sort of discussion is definitely not.
Its a fair amount to think of Michael, like any technology there are unintended consequences of it. In the end it comes down to who will control the surveillance. If its a small group then you'd have a system that makes 1984 look like an open democracy. If its generally available, then it makes conspiracies very difficult. In Brin's latest book he suggested a law I rather like. called the Henchman law - where the underlings are encouraged to rat on their bosses for immunity and a portion of the fines etc. If such a law was in place the chances of an Enron or World Com may not have occurred. At the same time the degree of scrutiny also makes me quite nervous. it seems to me we are at the same point where people were during the start of the Industrial Revolution. I do not think that anyone had an idea of the implications of all the technological developments that happened then. larry -- Larry C. Lyons ColdFusion/Web Developer Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer EBStor.com 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 tel: (703) 393-7930 fax: (703) 393-2659 Web: http://www.ebstor.com email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. -- > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 9:48 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: A good thing > > > I'm of two minds here. On one hand, I think that people are > more morally > aware when it comes to others in NY. I say that when dealing > in the realm of > crime rather than the general world of morality. The city is > better now than > it was by far. > On the other hand, it may be exactly as you say. People feel > that they are > being scrutinized and if they do not act morally (i.e. > calling the cops or > helping) then they will be penalized in some way, even if its > just social. > If it takes a certain lack of public freedom or judgment by > the public at > large to make people act nicely to others, then I'm all for it. > It's dangerous though. > > > > I think you're supporting my point here. There is a > decreasing amount of > > anonymity in certain cases, and a corresponding decrease in > crimes etc. > > David Brin, the science fiction author, came out with a > very interesting > > book a couple of years ago that dealt with this issue, called The > > Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose > Between Privacy > and > > Freedom? > > > > From Amazon.com > > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738201448/qid=1 > 033738084/sr=1 > > -4/ref=sr_1_4/002-9007594-8378411?v=glance > > > > David Brin takes some of our worst notions about threats to > privacy and > sets > > them on their ears. According to Brin, there is no turning > back the growth > > of public observation and inevitable loss of privacy--at > least outside of > > our own homes. Too many of our transactions are already > monitored: Brin > > asserts that cameras used to observe and reduce crime in > public areas have > > been successful and are on the rise. There's even talk of > bringing in > > microphones to augment the cameras. Brin has no doubt that > it's only a > > matter of time before they're installed in numbers to cover > every urban > area > > in every developed nation. > > While this has the makings for an Orwellian nightmare, Brin > argues that we > > can choose to make the same scenario a setting for even > greater freedom. > The > > determining factor is whether the power of observation and > surveillance is > > held only by the police and the powerful or is shared by us > all. In the > > latter case, Brin argues that people will have nothing to > fear from the > > watchers because everyone will be watching each other. The > cameras would > > become a public resource to assure that no mugger is hiding > around the > > corner, our children are playing safely in the park, and > police will not > > abuse their power. > > > > No simplistic Utopian, Brin also acknowledges the many > dangers on the way. > > He discusses how open access to information can either > threaten or enhance > > freedom. It is one thing, for example, to make the entire > outdoors public > > and another thing to allow the cameras and microphones to > snoop into our > > homes. He therefore spends a lot of pages examining what steps are > required > > to assure that a transparent society evolves in a manner > that enhances > > rather than restricts freedom. This is a challenging view > of tomorrow and > an > > exhilarating read for those who don't mind challenges to > even the most > > well-entrenched cultural assumptions. --Elizabeth Lewis > --This text refers > > to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title. > > -- > > > > larry > > > > -- > > Larry C. Lyons > > ColdFusion/Web Developer > > Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer > > EBStor.com > > 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 > > Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 > > tel: (703) 393-7930 > > fax: (703) 393-2659 > > Web: http://www.ebstor.com > > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. > > -- > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 9:13 AM > > > To: CF-Community > > > Subject: Re: A good thing > > > > > > > > > True, but I can't hold by any study that says this is the > > > normal reaction as > > > it is no longer true in NY. We've seen many cases where > > > people call, get > > > involved and even tape crimes. True it's many years later, > > > but the city is > > > very different now. The fear is no where near the same. > > > > > > > > > > MS. Genovese was not anonymous, but the witnesses were. > > > Moreover because > > > of > > > > the anonymity they abrogated responsibility to others. > There is a > > > > difference. > > > > > > > > larry > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Larry C. Lyons > > > > ColdFusion/Web Developer > > > > Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer > > > > EBStor.com > > > > 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 > > > > Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 > > > > tel: (703) 393-7930 > > > > fax: (703) 393-2659 > > > > Web: http://www.ebstor.com > > > > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 4:15 PM > > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > > Subject: Re: A good thing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True, but that's personal anonymity. In the Genovese > > > case, she wasn't > > > > > anonymous, the people hearing her being killed were. They had > > > > > the choice and > > > > > chance to call the cops and didn't. Her identity wasn't a > > > > > factor. It was > > > > > their own fears and sloth (I guess it is a deadly sin) that > > > > > helped kill her. > > > > > > > > > > > The interesting thing is the anonymity aspects. A similar > > > > > thing is watch > > > > > > people in their cars in traffic (only if you're not driving > > > > > that is :). > > > > > They > > > > > > think they are fairly anonymous. Thus you get all sorts > > > of private > > > > > behaviors > > > > > > that you don't normally see in public - nose picking etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > anonymity is a real disinhibiter. > > > > > > > > > > > > larry > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Larry C. Lyons > > > > > > ColdFusion/Web Developer > > > > > > Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer > > > > > > EBStor.com > > > > > > 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 > > > > > > Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 > > > > > > tel: (703) 393-7930 > > > > > > fax: (703) 393-2659 > > > > > > Web: http://www.ebstor.com > > > > > > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 12:09 PM > > > > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > > > > Subject: Re: A good thing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I remember the case (psych major here) and while anonymity > > > > > > > was a factor, I > > > > > > > think that the factors of indifference to others and fear > > > > > of getting > > > > > > > involved were more important. As foolish as it > may sound, the > > > > > > > city was a lot > > > > > > > darker then and there was a lot more fear around. > The people > > > > > > > who heard the > > > > > > > attacks knew her, they just didn't do anything till after > > > > > she was dead > > > > > > > (almost 50 minutes after the first attack). > > > > > > > For those who want to know what we're talking about, do a > > > > > > > search on "kitty > > > > > > > genovese". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to go through the archives and write > a profile on > > > > > > > me, have fun. > > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anonymity is also quite dangerous. People are far more > > > > > > > likely to be engage > > > > > > > > in unacceptable behaviors when anonymous than if they > > > > > were publicly > > > > > > > > identified. In the 1960's there was a case where a woman > > > > > > > was brutally > > > > > > > > murdered in New York in a development with > quite a lot of > > > > > > > people looking > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > from the surrounding apartment blocks. When investigated > > > > > > > later, most of > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > people reported that they thought someone else would be > > > > > > > contacting the > > > > > > > > police. In an experiment in the 70's the researchers put > > > > > > > pictures of the > > > > > > > > residents beside their apartment balconies. The > researchers > > > > > > > found that > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > lack of anonymity resulted in far more pro social and > > > > > pro community > > > > > > > behavior > > > > > > > > than before. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If a psychologist went through our > > > > > > > > > posts they could probably build a rather accurate > > > picture of > > > > > > > > > each of us. The true us. > > > > > > > > BTW Michael, as a former psych person you want me to go > > > > > through the > > > > > > > archives > > > > > > > > then? ;) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > larry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Larry C. Lyons > > > > > > > > ColdFusion/Web Developer > > > > > > > > Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer > > > > > > > > EBStor.com > > > > > > > > 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 > > > > > > > > Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 > > > > > > > > tel: (703) 393-7930 > > > > > > > > fax: (703) 393-2659 > > > > > > > > Web: http://www.ebstor.com > > > > > > > > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:34 AM > > > > > > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: A good thing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact that the anonymity gives the people > involve the > > > > > > > > > ability to interact > > > > > > > > > before any bias can come up is the good > thing. Even if it > > > > > > > > > does later on, > > > > > > > > > hopefully it will result in the 'TV-like > morality lesson'. > > > > > > > > > Even one person > > > > > > > > > treating another like a fellow human being is a > > > good thing. > > > > > > > > > And as for being sanitized, I think its quite the > > > other way > > > > > > > > > around when it > > > > > > > > > comes to email. We post our thought without > much editing > > > > > > > for content, > > > > > > > > > grammer or social ques. The slips, rants and > other things > > > > > > > we post tell > > > > > > > > > others a lot about who we really are. If a > > > psychologist went > > > > > > > > > through our > > > > > > > > > posts they could probably build a rather accurate > > > picture of > > > > > > > > > each of us. The > > > > > > > > > true us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it a removal of bias when you deal with someone > > > > > > > > > anonymously? On the > > > > > > > > > > surface, it seems like it works, but as I see > > > it the bias > > > > > > > > > hasn't been > > > > > > > > > > removed, only obfuscated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The interaction is able to take place without a > > > > > > > > > preconception or prejudice > > > > > > > > > > based on appearance, and that can certainly > be good. But > > > > > > > > > that doesn't > > > > > > > > > really > > > > > > > > > > mean that the bias doesn't exist. To take an obvious > > > > > > > > > stereotype example: > > > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > > you put a prejudiced white person in a room with a > > > > > > > prejudiced black > > > > > > > > > person, > > > > > > > > > > the bias is there. If they interact online with no > > > > > > > knowledge of skin > > > > > > > > > color, > > > > > > > > > > the interaction may proceed normally, but what > > > happens if > > > > > > > > > they then meet? > > > > > > > > > We > > > > > > > > > > want to believe that a TV-like morality > lesson will be > > > > > > > > > learned and that > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > racist person will realize that the other > person's skin > > > > > > > > > color doesn't > > > > > > > > > > matter; however, in my experience the bias > > > comes rushing to > > > > > > > > > the forefront > > > > > > > > > > and the racist person may become even more > > > incensed feeling > > > > > > > > > they have been > > > > > > > > > > betrayed and lied to by the other person. It's not > > > > > > > > > rational, but I've seen > > > > > > > > > > it happen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not saying that obfuscation is all bad. > As Patrick > > > > > > > > > said, it may help > > > > > > > > > > break down the "Us and Them". However, does it > > > have a flip > > > > > > > > > side? Do people > > > > > > > > > > intentionally hide their > color/race/religion/culture in > > > > > > > > > order to interact? > > > > > > > > > > Do those aspects become like a dreaded albatross and > > > > > > > > > something people come > > > > > > > > > > to wish to shed in order to become a > nameless, faceless > > > > > > > "sanitized" > > > > > > > > > person? > > > > > > > > > > If we are sanitizing, does that cast those > troublesome > > > > > > > qualities as > > > > > > > > > "dirty"? > > > > > > > > > > Where is the line drawn between being proud of our > > > > > > > > > differences and being > > > > > > > > > > hindered by them? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kevin Graeme > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-community@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
