[extropy-chat] Transparency vs. terrorism

[Mike Lorrey]

--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
 
> Dan it looks to me like we are talking about two different
> things.  Libertarianism is about limiting the power of
> government, but limiting government may empower and 
> motivate the snoopy LOLs.  The real debate is over how much
> privacy we are entitled to when in public.  Mike Lorrey
> and others have argued that freedom of speech (and many other
> freedoms) depends on freedom of anonymity.  But I have not
> been able to derive from constitutional fundamentals any
> basic right to anonymity, or any right to not be observed
> and recorded when in public. 

My research into the history of the right of travel on the public ways
has found that while vessels and vehicles of commerce need be
identified and identifiable for the commerce and revenue power of the
state, the police power to identify suspect and innocent has depended
strictly upon the state of war at the time, whether the peasantry was
capable of bearing arms or not, or whether a wanted man was under hot
pursuit in the area at the time (during peacetime).

While privacy in ones public acts were not generally observed as valid,
nor was testimony about said acts generally considered legally
reliable, once empirical experimentation demonstrated how unreliable
eyewitness testimony is. A similar standard should also be applied to
digital records of public acts: one eyewitness is not to be relied upon
just as one person can have their digital photos or videos doctored.
Many unconnected people with corroborating digital records would be
admissible.

However, when the country is in a state of war or insurgency, or both,
then the demands of national security, or even individual security,
override public anonymity wrt identifying individuals transiting the
countryside or ports of entry.

My arguments for anonymity in freedom of speech apply particularly to
the internet, as the polity is more politically divisive and intolerant
of incorrect opinion, the culture reminds one of the 17th and 18th
century period in europe and the colonies, when dissidents, like the
Puritans and Quakers, would spam the public rights of way with their
libels, broadsides, and pamplets. Paper had become remarkably cheap and
printing was commonly available, compared to prior eras, much as todays
era of blogging and spamming on the internet. Individuals with
unorthodox and/or dissident opinions found themselves tortured, and
body parts removed (tongues, ears, fingers, nose) as punishment if they
were identified by authorities as the author or publisher of
unacceptable printings put into the public commerce.

Is see in the last few weeks the largest spammer in Russia was beaten
to death in his Moscow apartment (as much as I hate spammers myself).
Reporters in the US are going to jail for not revealing sources, and in
the muslim world, reporters are being tortured and executed for
researching and/or writing about things that individuals or groups do
not want known. I myself have been under online attack from the
pacifist, bunkertarian, stalinist, and luddite left crowds for my
various writings at various times. Anonymity for the individual with a
message that needs to be told and heard is an essential part of the
right to free speech.

> The minute I step off my
> own private property, I assume I am fair game to have my
> every action observed.  I may not like it, but if a LOL 
> or a paparazzi does so, I don't see what actual law has 
> been broken or what right of mine has been violated.

Depends on who you are. If you are a person in a public position, with
power, there is a need to hold you accountable for your actions. If you
are John Q Public, there is no such need for the rest of society to
know how you spend your money or who you spend it with, or who spends
money on you.

I'm in an interesting position, myself: I hold no public office, though
I'm an official of an unofficial political party in my state, who has
had national media attention at least a few times in the last two
years. I am thus accountable to the members of my organization, but to
nobody else. If the media showed up on my doorstep tomorrow the first
thing they might see is the muzzle of my pistol.

> 
> It is an interesting question.  Today perhaps 10% of the
> proles have camera phones.  But we know 10 yrs from
> now it will be 90% and we have no legal infrastructure
> in place for limiting any of that.  I cannot even 
> imagine what such laws would look like.

I've seen several tv 'peoples court' shows using camera phone pictures
as evidence, but there is also a fellow on the run for snapping pics up
a womans skirt. Should women stop wearing skirts in public, if their
privates have no right to privacy in public?

> 
> To repeat: libertarianism is OK to discuss here.  ExI wants
> to move away from specifically endorsing any political
> party, which sounds reasonable for several reasons. The 
> real contentious stuff probably does fit better with Mike 
> Lorrey's extrofreedom list.  But do keep it interesting 
> and relevant.  Everyday politics is snoozy for the most 
> part, is it not? 

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs