Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

[Steve Smith]

What happens inside TSA security *stays* inside of TSA security... just 
like Vegas... something like a free-trade zone... free trade in various 
forms of insecurity, however.

LINKS/PICS or it didn't happen...

:)


On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Douglas Roberts 
mailto:d...@parrot-farm.net>> wrote:


In recognition of people's dislike of same-sex gropings, TSA is
now offering co-ed gropings as an additional, for-pay option.  I
bet you didn't know that.



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



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

Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

[James Steiner]

LINKS/PICS or it didn't happen...

:)


On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

> In recognition of people's dislike of same-sex gropings, TSA is now
> offering co-ed gropings as an additional, for-pay option.  I bet you didn't
> know that.
>
>

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

Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

[Douglas Roberts]

In recognition of people's dislike of same-sex gropings, TSA is now offering
co-ed gropings as an additional, for-pay option.  I bet you didn't know
that.

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Steve Smith  wrote:

>  At least they got my good side.
>
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Steve Smith  wrote:
>
>>  I got backscattered at Albq last Wednesday, is my picture on the
>> internets yet?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I see you wore the spike heels
>> and Tiara Guerin and Nick loaned you from
>> their collections...
>>
>>
>>  --Doug
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Steve Smith  wrote:
>>
>>>  I can just see it now... a whole horde of FRIAMers with their "freakin'
>>> flags flyin'!"   it's an appalling thought... even in line at TSA waitin for
>>> their turn at the backscatters!
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Doug Roberts
> drobe...@rti.org
> d...@parrot-farm.net
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>
>
> 
> 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
>
>
>
> 
> 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
>



-- 
Doug Roberts
drobe...@rti.org
d...@parrot-farm.net
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

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

Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

[Steve Smith]

  
  

At least they got my good side.
  
  On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Steve
Smith 
wrote:

  

  I got backscattered at Albq last
Wednesday, is my picture on the internets yet?
  


  
  I see you wore the spike heels
  and Tiara Guerin and Nick loaned you from
  their collections...


  


--Doug
  
  On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 3:22
PM, Steve Smith 
wrote:

   I can just
see it now... a whole horde of FRIAMers with
their "freakin' flags flyin'!"   it's an
appalling thought... even in line at TSA waitin
for their turn at the backscatters!
  

  

  
  

  

  
  
  
  
  -- 
  Doug Roberts
  drobe...@rti.org
  d...@parrot-farm.net
  505-455-7333 - Office
  505-670-8195 - Cell
  


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


  


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

Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

[Douglas Roberts]

I don't care *who* invented it:  it works for me.

--Doug

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Nicholas Thompson <
nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> “Honey”!?
>
>
>
> Isn’t that Bing Crosby talk?
>
>
>
> N
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Pamela McCorduck
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 11, 2010 8:19 AM
>
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective
>
>
>
> Yes, it is. Oh, HONEY!!
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 10, 2010, at 8:14 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>
>
>
> I got backscattered at Albq last Wednesday, is my picture on the internets
> yet?
>
>
>
> --Doug
>
> "If you're away from Broadway, you're only camping out."
>
>
>
>  Thomas E. Dewey
>
>
>

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

Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

[Nicholas Thompson]

"Honey"!?

 

Isn't that Bing Crosby talk?

 

N

 

 

From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Pamela McCorduck
Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 8:19 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

 

Yes, it is. Oh, HONEY!!

 

 

On Dec 10, 2010, at 8:14 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:





I got backscattered at Albq last Wednesday, is my picture on the internets
yet?

 

--Doug

"If you're away from Broadway, you're only camping out."
 
 Thomas E. Dewey

 


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

Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

[Pamela McCorduck]

Yes, it is. Oh, HONEY!!


On Dec 10, 2010, at 8:14 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

I got backscattered at Albq last Wednesday, is my picture on the  
internets yet?


--Doug



"If you're away from Broadway, you're only camping out."

Thomas E. Dewey


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

Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

[Steve Smith]

IN the national security game, it works just the opposite...
if you get a false positive, YOU are lunch to the machine...

Drug tests.
Polygraphs.
Investigators with attitude.




On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Roger Critchlow > wrote:


I'd say that the original conspiracy theory was the suspicion that
one was being stalked by a group of very stealthy predators.
Usually a false positive, but one false negative and you were lunch.


That's the most brilliant thing I've read all week.

~~J
www.turtlezero.com 



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



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

Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

[Douglas Roberts]

At least they got my good side.

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Steve Smith  wrote:

>  I got backscattered at Albq last Wednesday, is my picture on the
> internets yet?
>
>
>
>
> I see you wore the spike heels
> and Tiara Guerin and Nick loaned you from
> their collections...
>
>
>  --Doug
>
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Steve Smith  wrote:
>
>>  I can just see it now... a whole horde of FRIAMers with their "freakin'
>> flags flyin'!"   it's an appalling thought... even in line at TSA waitin for
>> their turn at the backscatters!
>>
>
>


-- 
Doug Roberts
drobe...@rti.org
d...@parrot-farm.net
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

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

Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

[James Steiner]

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Roger Critchlow  wrote:

> I'd say that the original conspiracy theory was the suspicion that one was
> being stalked by a group of very stealthy predators. Usually a false
> positive, but one false negative and you were lunch.
>
>
That's the most brilliant thing I've read all week.

~~J
www.turtlezero.com

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

Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

[Steve Smith]

Yah... but Guerin and I spent a coupla hours hacking into the systems to 
get rid of the pics... that hard salami you tried to smuggle on was just 
disgusting!
I got backscattered at Albq last Wednesday, is my picture on the 
internets yet?


--Doug

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Steve Smith > wrote:


I can just see it now... a whole horde of FRIAMers with their
"freakin' flags flyin'!"   it's an appalling thought... even in
line at TSA waitin for their turn at the backscatters!



Don't be too hard on the wackos.  And don't resist becoming a
wacko
yourself.  Let your freak flag fly, man. ;-)

--
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








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



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

Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

[Douglas Roberts]

I got backscattered at Albq last Wednesday, is my picture on the internets
yet?

--Doug

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Steve Smith  wrote:

>  I can just see it now... a whole horde of FRIAMers with their "freakin'
> flags flyin'!"   it's an appalling thought... even in line at TSA waitin for
> their turn at the backscatters!
>
>
>> Don't be too hard on the wackos.  And don't resist becoming a wacko
>> yourself.  Let your freak flag fly, man. ;-)
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>
>
> 
>
>

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

Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

[Tom Carter]

Nick -

  Actually, paint toenails red is strawberry patch, have red eyes is cherry 
tree . . . :-)

tom

On Dec 10, 2010, at 2:19 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

> Has to do with the efficacy of painting their toes red.
>  
> N
>  
> From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf 
> Of Roger Critchlow
> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 2:52 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective
>  
> No, and I didn't remember the joke, but google tells me if I haven't seen one 
> then their strategy for hiding there must be working.
>  
> -- rec --
> 
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Nicholas Thompson 
>  wrote:
> Well, GEEZ, Roger.  Have YOU ever seen an elephant in a cherry tree? 
>  
> Nick
> Ps: if you are too young to know what an elephant joke is, you won’t get 
> this.  In fact, if you’re old enough to know what an elephant joke is, you 
> still may not get it.  
>  
>  
>  
> From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf 
> Of Roger Critchlow
> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 2:15 PM
> 
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective
>  
> I'd say that the original conspiracy theory was the suspicion that one was 
> being stalked by a group of very stealthy predators. Usually a false 
> positive, but one false negative and you were lunch.
>  
> -- rec --
>  
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:14 AM, glen  wrote:
> Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote circa 10-12-08 10:29 AM:
> > It seems conclusive to me that most conspiracy theories can be attributed to
> > Gross Stupidity and the Secrecy imparts an air of reasoning where none
> > exists. ( We refuse to believe some affairs are complete and utter nonsense,
> > hence all the sightings of Jesus in concrete stains. Our brains impart
> > patterns where none exists)  How much effort is expended to reveal that some
> > agency was incompetent or stupid (Air India, Lockerbie Bombing).
> 
> Although this perspective on 6 sigma thoughts (e.g. conspiracy theories)
> is reasonable and practical, it's also dangerous.  We, as a population
> depend fundamentally on the thinkers in the tails of the distributions.
>  Those people do the due diligence none of us practical, reasonable
> people are willing to do.  Sure, it's true that most of what those (us)
> wackos spend their (our) time on ends up being rat holes and dead ends.
>  But the benefit is worth the cost.  Without wackos like Penrose
> speculating about quantum decoherence in the brain or astrobiologists
> _wanting_ to demonstrate the functional equivalence of chemical
> constituents in compounds like DNA, we'd be lost.  Our progress, if we
> made any at all, would be made by blunt thinkers whose best
> contributions enslave us to machines like assembly lines or standard
> accounting practices.
> 
> Even more to your overall point, the wackos, albeit in the tails of some
> distributions, can be thought of as the _most_ human, the grounding
> points for other distributions.  What's more human than the plight of a
> paranoid schizophrenic?  What's more human than strapping on a diaper so
> you can make good time stalking the object of your affection?  _These_
> are the people who save us from becoming _objects_.  They must be
> cherished and treasured for their humanity.
> 
> Don't be too hard on the wackos.  And don't resist becoming a wacko
> yourself.  Let your freak flag fly, man. ;-)
> 
> --
> 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
>  
> 
> 
> 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
>  
> 
> 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


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

Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

[Steve Smith]

I can just see it now... a whole horde of FRIAMers with their "freakin' 
flags flyin'!"   it's an appalling thought... even in line at TSA waitin 
for their turn at the backscatters!



Don't be too hard on the wackos.  And don't resist becoming a wacko
yourself.  Let your freak flag fly, man. ;-)

--
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




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



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

Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

[Nicholas Thompson]

Has to do with the efficacy of painting their toes red. 

 

N

 

From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 2:52 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

 

No, and I didn't remember the joke, but google tells me if I haven't seen
one then their strategy for hiding there must be working.

 

-- rec --

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Nicholas Thompson
 wrote:

Well, GEEZ, Roger.  Have YOU ever seen an elephant in a cherry tree?  

 

Nick

Ps: if you are too young to know what an elephant joke is, you won't get
this.  In fact, if you're old enough to know what an elephant joke is, you
still may not get it.  

 

 

 

From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 2:15 PM


To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

 

I'd say that the original conspiracy theory was the suspicion that one was
being stalked by a group of very stealthy predators. Usually a false
positive, but one false negative and you were lunch.

 

-- rec --

 

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:14 AM, glen  wrote:

Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote circa 10-12-08 10:29 AM:

> It seems conclusive to me that most conspiracy theories can be attributed
to
> Gross Stupidity and the Secrecy imparts an air of reasoning where none
> exists. ( We refuse to believe some affairs are complete and utter
nonsense,
> hence all the sightings of Jesus in concrete stains. Our brains impart
> patterns where none exists)  How much effort is expended to reveal that
some
> agency was incompetent or stupid (Air India, Lockerbie Bombing).

Although this perspective on 6 sigma thoughts (e.g. conspiracy theories)
is reasonable and practical, it's also dangerous.  We, as a population
depend fundamentally on the thinkers in the tails of the distributions.
 Those people do the due diligence none of us practical, reasonable
people are willing to do.  Sure, it's true that most of what those (us)
wackos spend their (our) time on ends up being rat holes and dead ends.
 But the benefit is worth the cost.  Without wackos like Penrose
speculating about quantum decoherence in the brain or astrobiologists
_wanting_ to demonstrate the functional equivalence of chemical
constituents in compounds like DNA, we'd be lost.  Our progress, if we
made any at all, would be made by blunt thinkers whose best
contributions enslave us to machines like assembly lines or standard
accounting practices.

Even more to your overall point, the wackos, albeit in the tails of some
distributions, can be thought of as the _most_ human, the grounding
points for other distributions.  What's more human than the plight of a
paranoid schizophrenic?  What's more human than strapping on a diaper so
you can make good time stalking the object of your affection?  _These_
are the people who save us from becoming _objects_.  They must be
cherished and treasured for their humanity.

Don't be too hard on the wackos.  And don't resist becoming a wacko
yourself.  Let your freak flag fly, man. ;-)

--
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

 



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

 


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

Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

[Roger Critchlow]

No, and I didn't remember the joke, but google tells me if I haven't seen
one then their strategy for hiding there must be working.

-- rec --

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Nicholas Thompson <
nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Well, GEEZ, Roger.  Have YOU ever seen an elephant in a cherry tree?
>
>
>
> Nick
>
> Ps: if you are too young to know what an elephant joke is, you won’t get
> this.  In fact, if you’re old enough to know what an elephant joke is, you
> still may not get it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Roger Critchlow
> *Sent:* Friday, December 10, 2010 2:15 PM
>
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective
>
>
>
> I'd say that the original conspiracy theory was the suspicion that one was
> being stalked by a group of very stealthy predators. Usually a false
> positive, but one false negative and you were lunch.
>
>
>
> -- rec --
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:14 AM, glen  wrote:
>
> Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote circa 10-12-08 10:29 AM:
>
> > It seems conclusive to me that most conspiracy theories can be attributed
> to
> > Gross Stupidity and the Secrecy imparts an air of reasoning where none
> > exists. ( We refuse to believe some affairs are complete and utter
> nonsense,
> > hence all the sightings of Jesus in concrete stains. Our brains impart
> > patterns where none exists)  How much effort is expended to reveal that
> some
> > agency was incompetent or stupid (Air India, Lockerbie Bombing).
>
> Although this perspective on 6 sigma thoughts (e.g. conspiracy theories)
> is reasonable and practical, it's also dangerous.  We, as a population
> depend fundamentally on the thinkers in the tails of the distributions.
>  Those people do the due diligence none of us practical, reasonable
> people are willing to do.  Sure, it's true that most of what those (us)
> wackos spend their (our) time on ends up being rat holes and dead ends.
>  But the benefit is worth the cost.  Without wackos like Penrose
> speculating about quantum decoherence in the brain or astrobiologists
> _wanting_ to demonstrate the functional equivalence of chemical
> constituents in compounds like DNA, we'd be lost.  Our progress, if we
> made any at all, would be made by blunt thinkers whose best
> contributions enslave us to machines like assembly lines or standard
> accounting practices.
>
> Even more to your overall point, the wackos, albeit in the tails of some
> distributions, can be thought of as the _most_ human, the grounding
> points for other distributions.  What's more human than the plight of a
> paranoid schizophrenic?  What's more human than strapping on a diaper so
> you can make good time stalking the object of your affection?  _These_
> are the people who save us from becoming _objects_.  They must be
> cherished and treasured for their humanity.
>
> Don't be too hard on the wackos.  And don't resist becoming a wacko
> yourself.  Let your freak flag fly, man. ;-)
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
> 
> 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
>

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

Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

[Nicholas Thompson]

Well, GEEZ, Roger.  Have YOU ever seen an elephant in a cherry tree?  

 

Nick

Ps: if you are too young to know what an elephant joke is, you won't get
this.  In fact, if you're old enough to know what an elephant joke is, you
still may not get it.  

 

 

 

From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 2:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

 

I'd say that the original conspiracy theory was the suspicion that one was
being stalked by a group of very stealthy predators. Usually a false
positive, but one false negative and you were lunch.

 

-- rec --

 

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:14 AM, glen  wrote:

Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote circa 10-12-08 10:29 AM:

> It seems conclusive to me that most conspiracy theories can be attributed
to
> Gross Stupidity and the Secrecy imparts an air of reasoning where none
> exists. ( We refuse to believe some affairs are complete and utter
nonsense,
> hence all the sightings of Jesus in concrete stains. Our brains impart
> patterns where none exists)  How much effort is expended to reveal that
some
> agency was incompetent or stupid (Air India, Lockerbie Bombing).

Although this perspective on 6 sigma thoughts (e.g. conspiracy theories)
is reasonable and practical, it's also dangerous.  We, as a population
depend fundamentally on the thinkers in the tails of the distributions.
 Those people do the due diligence none of us practical, reasonable
people are willing to do.  Sure, it's true that most of what those (us)
wackos spend their (our) time on ends up being rat holes and dead ends.
 But the benefit is worth the cost.  Without wackos like Penrose
speculating about quantum decoherence in the brain or astrobiologists
_wanting_ to demonstrate the functional equivalence of chemical
constituents in compounds like DNA, we'd be lost.  Our progress, if we
made any at all, would be made by blunt thinkers whose best
contributions enslave us to machines like assembly lines or standard
accounting practices.

Even more to your overall point, the wackos, albeit in the tails of some
distributions, can be thought of as the _most_ human, the grounding
points for other distributions.  What's more human than the plight of a
paranoid schizophrenic?  What's more human than strapping on a diaper so
you can make good time stalking the object of your affection?  _These_
are the people who save us from becoming _objects_.  They must be
cherished and treasured for their humanity.

Don't be too hard on the wackos.  And don't resist becoming a wacko
yourself.  Let your freak flag fly, man. ;-)

--
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

 


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

Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

[Roger Critchlow]

I'd say that the original conspiracy theory was the suspicion that one was
being stalked by a group of very stealthy predators. Usually a false
positive, but one false negative and you were lunch.

-- rec --

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:14 AM, glen  wrote:

> Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote circa 10-12-08 10:29 AM:
> > It seems conclusive to me that most conspiracy theories can be attributed
> to
> > Gross Stupidity and the Secrecy imparts an air of reasoning where none
> > exists. ( We refuse to believe some affairs are complete and utter
> nonsense,
> > hence all the sightings of Jesus in concrete stains. Our brains impart
> > patterns where none exists)  How much effort is expended to reveal that
> some
> > agency was incompetent or stupid (Air India, Lockerbie Bombing).
>
> Although this perspective on 6 sigma thoughts (e.g. conspiracy theories)
> is reasonable and practical, it's also dangerous.  We, as a population
> depend fundamentally on the thinkers in the tails of the distributions.
>  Those people do the due diligence none of us practical, reasonable
> people are willing to do.  Sure, it's true that most of what those (us)
> wackos spend their (our) time on ends up being rat holes and dead ends.
>  But the benefit is worth the cost.  Without wackos like Penrose
> speculating about quantum decoherence in the brain or astrobiologists
> _wanting_ to demonstrate the functional equivalence of chemical
> constituents in compounds like DNA, we'd be lost.  Our progress, if we
> made any at all, would be made by blunt thinkers whose best
> contributions enslave us to machines like assembly lines or standard
> accounting practices.
>
> Even more to your overall point, the wackos, albeit in the tails of some
> distributions, can be thought of as the _most_ human, the grounding
> points for other distributions.  What's more human than the plight of a
> paranoid schizophrenic?  What's more human than strapping on a diaper so
> you can make good time stalking the object of your affection?  _These_
> are the people who save us from becoming _objects_.  They must be
> cherished and treasured for their humanity.
>
> Don't be too hard on the wackos.  And don't resist becoming a wacko
> yourself.  Let your freak flag fly, man. ;-)
>
> --
> 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
>

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

Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

[glen]

Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote circa 10-12-08 10:29 AM:
> It seems conclusive to me that most conspiracy theories can be attributed to
> Gross Stupidity and the Secrecy imparts an air of reasoning where none
> exists. ( We refuse to believe some affairs are complete and utter nonsense,
> hence all the sightings of Jesus in concrete stains. Our brains impart
> patterns where none exists)  How much effort is expended to reveal that some
> agency was incompetent or stupid (Air India, Lockerbie Bombing).

Although this perspective on 6 sigma thoughts (e.g. conspiracy theories)
is reasonable and practical, it's also dangerous.  We, as a population
depend fundamentally on the thinkers in the tails of the distributions.
 Those people do the due diligence none of us practical, reasonable
people are willing to do.  Sure, it's true that most of what those (us)
wackos spend their (our) time on ends up being rat holes and dead ends.
 But the benefit is worth the cost.  Without wackos like Penrose
speculating about quantum decoherence in the brain or astrobiologists
_wanting_ to demonstrate the functional equivalence of chemical
constituents in compounds like DNA, we'd be lost.  Our progress, if we
made any at all, would be made by blunt thinkers whose best
contributions enslave us to machines like assembly lines or standard
accounting practices.

Even more to your overall point, the wackos, albeit in the tails of some
distributions, can be thought of as the _most_ human, the grounding
points for other distributions.  What's more human than the plight of a
paranoid schizophrenic?  What's more human than strapping on a diaper so
you can make good time stalking the object of your affection?  _These_
are the people who save us from becoming _objects_.  They must be
cherished and treasured for their humanity.

Don't be too hard on the wackos.  And don't resist becoming a wacko
yourself.  Let your freak flag fly, man. ;-)

-- 
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

Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

[Steve Smith]

ecy imparts an air of 
reasoning where none exists. ( We refuse to believe some affairs are 
complete and utter nonsense, hence all the sightings of Jesus in 
concrete stains. Our brains impart patterns where none exists)  How 
much effort is expended to reveal that some agency was incompetent or 
stupid (Air India, Lockerbie Bombing).  The agents within our states 
depend upon the delusion that we believe they are smarter than us 
(They are professionals we are the helots).


I'm pretty sure there are agents of the state who *are* smarter than 
me... but not a lot of them and not a lot smarter... but maybe more 
important than being smarter than me (sometimes), they are dedicated to 
their cause, I am not.  I spend a few seconds every day trying to figure 
out how I do/should/might relate to the state... those agents spend *all 
day* and in some cases, most of the night trying to figure out how to 
leverage their power over me into more power over me... even if I was 
much smarter than *all* of them, they might yet have an advantage!  
Until their power over me gets close to the imbalance say between the 
Coyote and the Cottontail, I'm likely to be careless in the extreme... 
all fat and happy munching on the blades of green in the field.  This 
advantage reverses when it is the difference between *having a meal* and 
*becoming a meal*...   which is why various "resistance" movements area 
always so powerful, hard to crush.


Let us begin by cleaning the house. Most men would prefer to dispense 
with all the nonsense given a choice.


Housecleaning as a populist revolutionary political movement just 
requires some PR work. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the 
states but the unelected rats  have to controlled.


I agree with starting with simple housecleaning... it is always more 
attractive to sell and move or burn it down than to give it the very 
same level of cleaning it is going to get anyway when the smoke clears 
or the transaction is made...  Ironic, no?


 But it is hard to do... we have a lot of bad habits... we are lazy... 
and we don't even (collectively) understand the need for it...  most of 
the junk we need to throw out is somebody's memorabilia, someone's 
favorite tchochke... something we are *sure* we will need later.


Thanks for a great (as usual) commentary.

- Steve


**Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky**

**Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology)**

**120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd.**

**Winnipeg, Manitoba**

**CANADA R2J 3R2**

**(204) 2548321  Phone/Fax**

*vbur...@shaw.ca* <mailto:vbur...@shaw.ca>

-Original Message-
*From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] 
*On Behalf Of *James Steiner

*Sent:* December 7, 2010 8:21 PM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

It's my belief that individual privacy is entirely NOT the same as 
government classification (as secret, top secret, etc) of information.


Governments do NOT have a "right of privacy". Our government is 
supposed to be "by, of, and for" the people. It's use of secrecy is 
appropriate (and should be protected) when that secrecy serves to 
protect those people, not when it serves to protect the individuals 
who do the classifying (or those they serve) from embarrassment or 
legal prosecution.


Such uses are (and I'm pretty sure this is not just my opinion), illegal.

We all kind of "knew" that classification has been used this way. We 
all hear or see or read anecdotes. Well, the Irag war papers proved 
it. As have all the subsequent leaks.


I think that until the government and all its agents demonstrate that 
they can use the tool of keeping secrets correctly, that they should 
not be allowed to keep secrets.


Wikileaks  has done the American People a great service. Now I hope 
that they (we) are smart enough, and outraged enough, to move to fix 
what's broken. (IMHO, that's congress / campaign finance / influence 
peddling).


~~James

www.turtlezero.com <http://www.turtlezero.com>

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Jochen Fromm <mailto:j...@cas-group.net>> wrote:


In the age of social media and social networks
privacy has become an issue of intense debate.
Privacy means an individual has the right to be secure from
unauthorized disclosure of information about oneself.

Now if a state has "state secrets", is this fundamentally
different from privacy issues for
the individual (only for the state)? Should
a state in a democracy have any real secrets
at all? And if the state has the right to prevent invasion of
privacy, shouldn't the individual have the same right, too?

It is clearly evil what Wikileaks has done recently,
they went to far this time. But too much censorship
and secrecy is not a good idea, either (as the &qu

Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

[Douglas Roberts]

It's not the "reading and writing" abilities that the folks in charge are so
worried about so much as the "thinking" thing.  The US government, and
presumably the Canadian one too would no doubt be much happier if the masses
just believed the official government line that WikiLeaks and Assange
engaged in criminal activity.

You know, what we need now is a "Canadian Sarah Palin" to help bring our two
countries closer in sync, Vladimyr.

--Doug

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky
wrote:

>  Assange’s actions are having tremendous subsidiary repercussions.
>
>
>
>
> http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20101208/wikileaks-threat-toronto-woman-101208/
>
>
>
>
>
> The secrecy advocates are becoming so belligerent and unable to disguise
> the true motives.
>
> Now they threaten housewives that can read and write.
>
>
>
> Does Flanagan have something to hide ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky*
>
> *Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology)*
>
>
>
> *120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd.*
>
> *Winnipeg, Manitoba*
>
> *CANADA R2J 3R2*
>
> *(204) 2548321  Phone/Fax*
>
> *vbur...@shaw.ca* 
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On
> Behalf Of *James Steiner
> *Sent:* December 7, 2010 8:21 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective
>
>
>
> It's my belief that individual privacy is entirely NOT the same as
> government classification (as secret, top secret, etc) of information.
>
>
>
> Governments do NOT have a "right of privacy". Our government is supposed to
> be "by, of, and for" the people. It's use of secrecy is appropriate (and
> should be protected) when that secrecy serves to protect those people, not
> when it serves to protect the individuals who do the classifying (or those
> they serve) from embarrassment or legal prosecution.
>
>
>
> Such uses are (and I'm pretty sure this is not just my opinion), illegal.
>
>
>
> We all kind of "knew" that classification has been used this way. We all
> hear or see or read anecdotes. Well, the Irag war papers proved it. As have
> all the subsequent leaks.
>
>
>
> I think that until the government and all its agents demonstrate that they
> can use the tool of keeping secrets correctly, that they should not be
> allowed to keep secrets.
>
>
>
> Wikileaks  has done the American People a great service. Now I hope that
> they (we) are smart enough, and outraged enough, to move to fix what's
> broken. (IMHO, that's congress / campaign finance / influence peddling).
>
>
>
> ~~James
>
> www.turtlezero.com
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Jochen Fromm  wrote:
>
> In the age of social media and social networks
> privacy has become an issue of intense debate.
> Privacy means an individual has the right to be secure from unauthorized
> disclosure of information about oneself.
>
> Now if a state has "state secrets", is this fundamentally different from
> privacy issues for
> the individual (only for the state)? Should
> a state in a democracy have any real secrets
> at all? And if the state has the right to prevent invasion of privacy,
> shouldn't the individual have the same right, too?
>
> It is clearly evil what Wikileaks has done recently,
> they went to far this time. But too much censorship
> and secrecy is not a good idea, either (as the "top secret america"
> investigation from the Washington Post showed). What do you think?
>
> -J.
>
>

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

Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

[Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky]

Assange's actions are having tremendous subsidiary repercussions.

 

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20101208/wikileaks-threat-toronto-woman-101
208/

 

 

The secrecy advocates are becoming so belligerent and unable to disguise the
true motives.

Now they threaten housewives that can read and write.

 

Does Flanagan have something to hide ?

 

 

 

Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky

Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology)

 

120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd.

Winnipeg, Manitoba

CANADA R2J 3R2 

(204) 2548321  Phone/Fax

 <mailto:vbur...@shaw.ca> vbur...@shaw.ca 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of James Steiner
Sent: December 7, 2010 8:21 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

 

It's my belief that individual privacy is entirely NOT the same as
government classification (as secret, top secret, etc) of information.

 

Governments do NOT have a "right of privacy". Our government is supposed to
be "by, of, and for" the people. It's use of secrecy is appropriate (and
should be protected) when that secrecy serves to protect those people, not
when it serves to protect the individuals who do the classifying (or those
they serve) from embarrassment or legal prosecution.

 

Such uses are (and I'm pretty sure this is not just my opinion), illegal.

 

We all kind of "knew" that classification has been used this way. We all
hear or see or read anecdotes. Well, the Irag war papers proved it. As have
all the subsequent leaks.

 

I think that until the government and all its agents demonstrate that they
can use the tool of keeping secrets correctly, that they should not be
allowed to keep secrets.

 

Wikileaks  has done the American People a great service. Now I hope that
they (we) are smart enough, and outraged enough, to move to fix what's
broken. (IMHO, that's congress / campaign finance / influence peddling).

 

~~James

www.turtlezero.com

 

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Jochen Fromm  wrote:

In the age of social media and social networks
privacy has become an issue of intense debate.
Privacy means an individual has the right to be secure from unauthorized
disclosure of information about oneself.

Now if a state has "state secrets", is this fundamentally different from
privacy issues for
the individual (only for the state)? Should
a state in a democracy have any real secrets
at all? And if the state has the right to prevent invasion of privacy,
shouldn't the individual have the same right, too?

It is clearly evil what Wikileaks has done recently,
they went to far this time. But too much censorship
and secrecy is not a good idea, either (as the "top secret america"
investigation from the Washington Post showed). What do you think?

-J.


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

Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

[Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky]

arge of rape
adopted almost as a reprisal for an obvious accident. I was always under the
impression that rape as defined by law must be based on one party  taking
away the other party's freedom of choice by some means(Drugs, threats ,
force, deception?). Oh in the second case it appears that both parties were
in a state of sleep when it happened!. Additionally both women were in
communication for some period before making formal charges(Appears as
collusion or conspiracy) ( I can see why the charges were dropped the first
time, accidents, stupidity and unconsciousness are slim bases for charges)
Perhaps a charge of negligence ( or stupidity, public mischief)  could be
leveled at all parties and we be done with the matter. Heaven forbid we
start filling jails with stupid people. Please add any legal opinions on
such a situation. Both women invited Assange into their homes and later had
regrets which they needed to parade before the world  as they sincerely
claimed to be victims not in any way responsible for their own decisions. I
have a philosophical problem with this scenario, as a pro-feminist, equality
always implied that responsibility was equal as well. How can two entities
be equal under the law if one is never responsible for its actions and
decisions? (Hence we accept that children are not equal to adults) ( ( Is
this symbolic Justice or Greek Comedy ?) 

 

 

End the stupidity of secrecy, let us start acting like grown ups for a
change.

 

It seems conclusive to me that most conspiracy theories can be attributed to
Gross Stupidity and the Secrecy imparts an air of reasoning where none
exists. ( We refuse to believe some affairs are complete and utter nonsense,
hence all the sightings of Jesus in concrete stains. Our brains impart
patterns where none exists)  How much effort is expended to reveal that some
agency was incompetent or stupid (Air India, Lockerbie Bombing).  The agents
within our states depend upon the delusion that we believe they are smarter
than us (They are professionals we are the helots). 

 

Let us begin by cleaning the house. Most men would prefer to dispense with
all the nonsense given a choice.

Housecleaning as a populist revolutionary political movement just requires
some PR work. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the states but the
unelected rats  have to controlled.

 

 

Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky

Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology)

 

120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd.

Winnipeg, Manitoba

CANADA R2J 3R2 

(204) 2548321  Phone/Fax

 <mailto:vbur...@shaw.ca> vbur...@shaw.ca 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of James Steiner
Sent: December 7, 2010 8:21 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

 

It's my belief that individual privacy is entirely NOT the same as
government classification (as secret, top secret, etc) of information.

 

Governments do NOT have a "right of privacy". Our government is supposed to
be "by, of, and for" the people. It's use of secrecy is appropriate (and
should be protected) when that secrecy serves to protect those people, not
when it serves to protect the individuals who do the classifying (or those
they serve) from embarrassment or legal prosecution.

 

Such uses are (and I'm pretty sure this is not just my opinion), illegal.

 

We all kind of "knew" that classification has been used this way. We all
hear or see or read anecdotes. Well, the Irag war papers proved it. As have
all the subsequent leaks.

 

I think that until the government and all its agents demonstrate that they
can use the tool of keeping secrets correctly, that they should not be
allowed to keep secrets.

 

Wikileaks  has done the American People a great service. Now I hope that
they (we) are smart enough, and outraged enough, to move to fix what's
broken. (IMHO, that's congress / campaign finance / influence peddling).

 

~~James

www.turtlezero.com

 

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Jochen Fromm  wrote:

In the age of social media and social networks
privacy has become an issue of intense debate.
Privacy means an individual has the right to be secure from unauthorized
disclosure of information about oneself.

Now if a state has "state secrets", is this fundamentally different from
privacy issues for
the individual (only for the state)? Should
a state in a democracy have any real secrets
at all? And if the state has the right to prevent invasion of privacy,
shouldn't the individual have the same right, too?

It is clearly evil what Wikileaks has done recently,
they went to far this time. But too much censorship
and secrecy is not a good idea, either (as the "top secret america"
investigation from the Washington Post showed). What do you think?

-J.

==

Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

[James Steiner]

It's my belief that individual privacy is entirely NOT the same as
government classification (as secret, top secret, etc) of information.

Governments do NOT have a "right of privacy". Our government is supposed to
be "by, of, and for" the people. It's use of secrecy is appropriate (and
should be protected) when that secrecy serves to protect those people, not
when it serves to protect the individuals who do the classifying (or those
they serve) from embarrassment or legal prosecution.

Such uses are (and I'm pretty sure this is not just my opinion), illegal.

We all kind of "knew" that classification has been used this way. We all
hear or see or read anecdotes. Well, the Irag war papers proved it. As have
all the subsequent leaks.

I think that until the government and all its agents demonstrate that they
can use the tool of keeping secrets correctly, that they should not be
allowed to keep secrets.

Wikileaks  has done the American People a great service. Now I hope that
they (we) are smart enough, and outraged enough, to move to fix what's
broken. (IMHO, that's congress / campaign finance / influence peddling).

~~James
www.turtlezero.com

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Jochen Fromm  wrote:

> In the age of social media and social networks
> privacy has become an issue of intense debate.
> Privacy means an individual has the right to be secure from unauthorized
> disclosure of information about oneself.
>
> Now if a state has "state secrets", is this fundamentally different from
> privacy issues for
> the individual (only for the state)? Should
> a state in a democracy have any real secrets
> at all? And if the state has the right to prevent invasion of privacy,
> shouldn't the individual have the same right, too?
>
> It is clearly evil what Wikileaks has done recently,
> they went to far this time. But too much censorship
> and secrecy is not a good idea, either (as the "top secret america"
> investigation from the Washington Post showed). What do you think?
>
> -J.
>

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

Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

[Owen Densmore]

> It's like the paparazzi for diplomats.

Well done!

-- Owen



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

Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

[glen]

Jochen Fromm wrote circa 10-12-07 01:41 PM:
> Now if a state has "state secrets", is this fundamentally different from
> privacy issues for
> the individual (only for the state)? Should
> a state in a democracy have any real secrets
> at all? And if the state has the right to prevent invasion of privacy,
> shouldn't the individual have the same right, too?

I don't think so.  I think the whole "corporations are people" concept
is flawed.  And the state is just another form of corporation, at least
it usually seems that way.  I also don't think it has much to do with
the political system (democracy or not).  I think there's a fundamental
difference between an organism, like a human, and a collection of
organisms.  I suppose the interesting cases are things like lichen,
biofilms, aspen groves, etc.  As with the backscatter machines and tsa
pat-downs, Wikileaks' actions will be beneficial as a foil for how we
feel about these issues.

> It is clearly evil what Wikileaks has done recently,
> they went to far this time. But too much censorship
> and secrecy is not a good idea, either (as the "top secret america"
> investigation from the Washington Post showed). What do you think?

As a whistle-blower organization, they went too far.  As far as I know,
no illegal or unethical activity was exposed by the cables.  It's like
the paparazzi for diplomats.  But as a foreign transparency advocate,
they did the right thing.  They did not commit any crimes and they
published, as journalists, what they thought the (global) public ought
to know.  Even exposing potential targets for attack is no worse than,
for example, me posting the results of running nmap on Owen's machine,
or white hat hackers blogging about Microsoft vulnerabilities.  The
enemy is the secrecy, not the facts.

-- 
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

Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

[Owen Densmore]

What were the really egregious evils they did?  I confess to not reading them 
all.

-- Owen


On Dec 7, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

> Fixed that for you. Opinions are always welcomed.
> 
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Jochen Fromm  wrote:
> In the age of social media and social networks
> privacy has become an issue of intense debate.
> Privacy means an individual has the right to be secure from unauthorized 
> disclosure of information about oneself.
> 
> Now if a state has "state secrets", is this fundamentally different from 
> privacy issues for
> the individual (only for the state)? Should
> a state in a democracy have any real secrets
> at all? And if the state has the right to prevent invasion of privacy, 
> shouldn't the individual have the same right, too?
> 
> In my opinion, It is clearly evil what Wikileaks has done recently,
> and I think they went to far this time. But too much censorship
> and secrecy is not a good idea, either (as the "top secret america" 
> investigation from the Washington Post showed). What do you think?
> 
> -J.
> 


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

Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

[Douglas Roberts]

Fixed that for you. Opinions are always welcomed.

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Jochen Fromm  wrote:

> In the age of social media and social networks
> privacy has become an issue of intense debate.
> Privacy means an individual has the right to be secure from unauthorized
> disclosure of information about oneself.
>
> Now if a state has "state secrets", is this fundamentally different from
> privacy issues for
> the individual (only for the state)? Should
> a state in a democracy have any real secrets
> at all? And if the state has the right to prevent invasion of privacy,
> shouldn't the individual have the same right, too?
>
> In my opinion, It is clearly evil what Wikileaks has done recently,
> and I think they went to far this time. But too much censorship
> and secrecy is not a good idea, either (as the "top secret america"
> investigation from the Washington Post showed). What do you think?
>
> -J.
>
>
> 
> 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
>



-- 
Doug Roberts
drobe...@rti.org
d...@parrot-farm.net
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

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