[extropy-chat] Transparency vs. terrorism

[Technotranscendence]

On Sunday, August 07, 2005 12:00 AM spike spike66 at comcast.net wrote:
>> The problems, of course, are a) defining just
>> what is public and b) allowing this will erode
>> other freedoms...
>>
>> I'm amazed so few others on this list have such
>> concerns.  I expected a storm of protest.  Along
>> with libertarianism, has a healthy protective
>> attitude toward liberty been exorcised from
>> the list?
>
> 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.

Not exactly, but let me get to the rest of your point.

> The real debate is over how much privacy we are
> entitled to when in public.

See my "a)" above.  Since law -- whether private or government -- will
have define just what is public, this is problematic.  (Granted, in the
market anarchist variant of libertarianism, there really is no such as
public property, so this issue does not exactly arise.)

> 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.  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.

My point was more about living in a society where people not only said
this was legally okay, but where they encouraged it.  Dan Clemmensen
wasn't just saying, "Well, it doesn't really violate any rights I know
about, so I reckon we'll have to put up with it."  In fact, he wrote:
"As long as we are going in this direction anyway, why not go a bit
further. If we give up the (non-existent) right to privacy in public, we
can make it much harder on terrorists."

He went on to suggest a particular program:  " Let's put cameras damn
near everywhere, and allow anyone who so desires to monitor them."  Now,
did you think this would be a private network of people or more like a
government thing?

> It is an interesting question.  Today perhaps
>10% of the proles have camera phones.

I have one.

> 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.

My fear was not lots of individuals with cameras, as they've existed now
for well over a century.  My fear is more centered on a centralized
system of surveillance, which would seem ripe, once it's in place, for
those with nefarious designs to co-opt.  I think Dan and others do not
see this as a problem because they're discounting the possibility.

I don't want to sound paranoid.  After all, right now, other people can
watch people in public, for the most part.  That's part of what it means
to be in public.  However, when someone decides to set up a global
network to watch everyone at all times -- yes, for now, only in
public -- then I get worried.  If such just came about spontaneously,
I'd still be worried, but I don't want to hasten the day.:)

> 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.

I misunderstood.  I seem to recall many years ago that ExI was
unashamedly libertarian -- not Libertarian Party, but endorsing the
libertarian ideal of a society without the initiation of force.  I
thought the goal of moving away from that was not to distance itself
from the LP or any party, but to embrace more welfare state types who
happen to sign on to everything else but the politics.

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/