[extropy-chat] Many eyes

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jul 11, 2005, at 6:31 PM, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
> I think we have argued this point ad nauseum in years past.
>

No.  Usually the good of a transparent society and/or its universal  
implementation is largely assumed.   I always find this highly  
disturbing and quite dangerous.

> Brin's "Transparent society" argues that we cannot put the toothpaste
> back in the tube: existing technological trends will inevitably permit
> constant monitoring of everybody. Brin argues that the only feasible
> response is to explicitly enable anybody to monitor anybody else:  
> If the cops can
> monitor you, then you can monitor the cops. They can monitor you at  
> home or
> at work: You can monitor them at home or at work.
>

We live in a time where federal government is increasingly  
secretive.  I see no indication that mere technology will make it  
impossible for it to keep its secrets.  An unbalanced one way  
transparency seems to be the direction we are headed in.  If you know  
of some way to break government secrecy and make government more  
transparent I would love to hear it.   Even universal transparency  
still has problems.

> Brin does not argue that universal monitoring is "good." He argues  
> that it
> is inevitable, and then tries to determine the best ways to deal  
> with the
> technology.

I have seen him publicly argue that it is not only inevitable but  
good.  I don't agree it is inevitable.  I believe it is  
technologically feasible to keep some control and limits on what is  
monitored.  I do agree that for transhumans it would be immoral to  
limit the capacity of the natural and/or augmented mind to record any  
and all information in full fidelity.  But that doesn't mean that any  
and all uses of that information are acceptable ro that it is  
permissible to look through walls just for the fun of it.

>
> Personally, I am neutral on privacy: I prefer to maintain my own  
> privacy, but
> I understand that I will not be able to do so in the future.

Are you telling me that there is no technical or social way to  
preserve privacy even in your own home or in your thoughts?  I don't  
believe this is the case.

> I accept Brin's solution:
> If I must forgo privacy, then so must everybody else, including all  
> government officials,
> church officials, and other arbiters of "moral behavior."

If the majority are against you or your behavior then you are in big  
trouble in such a society.  Stagnation is the likely most benign result.

>
> Please do not waste my time with arguments that transparency is  
> "wrong."
> Transparency is inevitable. You may as well argue against the laws  
> of physics.

Do not waste my time claiming something this multifaceted is  
inevitable without proof.

- samantha