-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Nicholas Thompson wrote: > NICK DOES NOT THINK THIS. ON THE CONTRARY. SORRY TO HAVE LEFT THIS > IMPRESSION.
Whew! I'm glad of that. > BUT DON'T YOU AGREE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "OPINIONATING" AND > "ARGUING", A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "TALK SHOW" DISCOURSE AND TOUGH BUT > USEFUL DISAGREEMENT? PERHAPS NOT. No. I _do_ see a distinction between the participants, though. Thoughtful, contemplative people (TCP) versus knee-jerk, always running off at the mouth people (KAROM). I usually have very good arguments with TCP regardless of the subject. A group of TCP can cover any topic quite thoroughly including vague, ill-defined things like politics, where a group of KAROM can't cover anything in any topic area. So, what you're seeing is the difference between TCP (often made up of lawyers when considering people like judges and congress) versus KAROM when you walk in on a bunch of half-drunk liberals in a bar. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not generally a KAROM... but I play one frequently! ;-) > ONE POINT I WOULD HATE TO SEE LOST IN THE FLAMES HERE IS THAT THE > LAWS AND INSTITUTIONS THAT PROTECT INDIVIDUAL CIVIL LIBERTIES MAY BE > ILL SUITED TO THE AGE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY. I doubt it. Technologists are prone to suggesting things like this. We (perhaps not you) are highly susceptible to the idea that technology can fundamentally change the nature of human behavior and society. And there's not a lot of clear evidence that this is the case. My skeptical nature tells me that there is NO "age of IT". Humans are just as we were when we first started hoeing the dirt 6k years ago, perhaps even before that. The only difference is that we have softer skin and spend way too much time staring at the bells and whistles on our artifacts. Now what _does_ change is the concept of "civil liberties". That's such a vague and ill-defined thing that it changes from second to second and from grid point to grid point. What I think of as a civil liberty here in my house on the river may be completely different from what a New Yorker in her high-rise condo thinks. For example, I'm not at all comfortable with video cameras recording the traffic on the public thoroughfare of the state-owned river. Such a video camera is a violation of privacy. But, Sally the New Yorker might think video cameras on the street corners are a public asset because it helps her feel safe when she comes home late from work. And the subjective nature of concepts like "civil liberties" means that it's _always_ been and always will be vague and ill-defined. I.e. it's not the humans that have changed in the face of technology, it's the technology that's changed. Hence, human-centered civil liberties are no more or less stable than they always have been. Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > As for data mining of essentially public transaction records (they > are for sale), there may be some birds eye view of international > social networks that is useful for intelligence analysts to have, but > it's not a wiretap. If "wiretap" is the technology that's changed, then laws (also a technology) relating to wiretaps should change in a commensurate way. But, Marcus is right in that what's being discussed is not really a "wiretap". In fact, the concept of a "wiretap" is pretty silly given today's technology. But that doesn't mean the gist of the laws circling "wiretaps" are obsolete. It just means that "wiretap" means more than technology. It means "listening in on a supposedly private conversation". In my opinion, if we separate out e-mail, I think it's pretty silly for anyone to think e-mail is _private_. Hence wiretapping laws don't apply to e-mail at all. I tend to think anything I write in an e-mail that isn't encrypted is public.... like talking in a crowded room or writing a love letter on a postcard instead of using an envelope. (Oh God how I wish my clients would understand this point.) A better concept of wiretapping with respect to e-mail would be a government mandated back door to encryption algorithms. As long as it was encrypted, it would be considered private. And a "wiretap" would be the decryption (via the back door) of such private comm. The same consideration can be given to calls made on a cell phone or over VOIP. Basically, any time the _medium_ is public, the unencrypted traffic over that medium is also public. And as long as you, personally, have the capability, you have the right to listen in. (e.g. in a crowded room, you just need good ears; for cell phones, you just need a receiver and the protocols) Why would we require a government agent to get a warrant for listening to a conversation in a public room? Of course this does have implications w.r.t. private corporations like AT&T cooperating with the government without their customers' consent. >> WOULDN'T WE LIKE SPECIAL JUDICIARY, SOPHISTICATED BOTH IN >> CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND IN COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY WHOSE JOB IT WAS TO >> EVALUATE THE GOVERNMENT'S PROGRAMS OF INFORMATION GATHERING? > > It would just be another redundant government organization to pacify > confused citizens with lip service. All true conservatives will agree. A special judiciary, sophisticated in constitutional law and computer technology will _merely_ place more humans on the public payroll. At best it's a waste of money. At worst, it's more bureaucracy that wastes money at an exponential rate. > AND ISN'T THE FRIAM LIST PARTICULARLY QUALIFIED BY EXPERIENCE AND > KNOWLEDGE, TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE DISCUSSION OF THIS IDEA? THAT IS > ALL i WAS TRYING TO SAY. Now, if I stop speaking as a tax paying citizen and start speaking as if I were a member of this elite group of experts, then I can see _many_ reasons for advocating such an arm of the government! Wouldn't it be cool to be consulted by the powerful elite about heavy matters of state like wiretapping laws? Wouldn't it be a good solid stroke to the old ego to get in high profile arguments with people like John Yoo, Steven Aftergood, and Ray Kurzweil? Not to mention a pleasant fattening of the old wallet ... And to reap all that reward directly from the free money doled out by the taxpayer to boot?!? - From that perspective, it's easy to see the attraction. - -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. -- Ronald Reagan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGvIQeZeB+vOTnLkoRArnTAKCC+8q15toO1uz+u42DGVuCqpp31ACcC42b qtmh17HdOTIEW1j06rlbMtg= =PI8u -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
