Owen Densmore wrote at 03/18/2012 12:02 PM: > Larry Lessig apparently has two interesting views on AE > > 1 - Anonymous contributions: He's not bothered by them, mainly because > not even the AE candidates will know who they are, thus not having power > over the candidate.
Re: Lessig's anonymity argument. I found this comment interesting: http://www.johnlumea.com/2012/03/the-shadow-super-pac-of-centrism.html "But, for some observers, it is not down at the granular, personal level of quid pro quo that the opportunity and the risk for corruption is most evident at Americans Elect. Rather, it is up at the systemic, process level — the level that, in order to see what's going on, requires a wider-angle lens that Lessig seems unwilling to use." As I see it, this is the same extent of the disagreement between Steven Aftergood of Secrecy News and Wikileaks. They're both on the same side, but Aftergood is willing to accept a little secrecy (or bureaucratic viscosity in the flow of information) in the name of rationality whereas Wikileaks identifies secrecy itself as part of the problem. I happen to come down on the open side in both arguments. I.e. I don't buy Lessig's argument at all. There is only anonymity for the individuals, not for the _corporation_ we call Americans Elect (which has an executive team and a board of directors with powers beyond those of the "delegates"). In more positive news: https://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2012/03/gao_expands.html "A classified GAO review of FBI counterterrorism programs has been completed, and a GAO investigation of the role of contractors in intelligence is in progress." -- glen ============================================================ 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
