[ExI] What surveillance solution is best - Orwellian, David Brin's, or ...?

[A B]

Stathis wrote:

> "Not really, it's hard to think of a cheaper
> electronic device than a
> short range radio transmitter, especially if it
> didn't have to be
> small enough to hide. Any car driving around at any
> time could be an
> unmarked government vehicle with a list of
> frequencies for different
> addresses."

It's not just the cost of the device. It's the cost of
monitoring, repairing, and enforcing violations. And
then there's the problem of countering hacking issues.
It seems that an entire infrastructure would have to
be built around it. It *might* not be cost-prohibitive
today, but it probably would have been not too long
ago. Especially for non-superpowers.

> "Sure, but people who are really serious about their
> plot can always go
> to a public place and speak in code or something.
> The idea is to make
> it harder for plots to hatch; the fear factor alone
> of having bugs
> everywhere and knowing that there are bugs
> everywhere would have to
> have an effect."

It might have a small effect. But I imagine it still
wouldn't bump-up the "Benefit" side sufficiently.

> "Yes, but why has it dissuaded countries from
bugging
> everyone but not
> from eg. killing a large proportion of their
> population, such as in
> Cambodia or Rwanda? It seems to me that they feel
> they can justify
> killing all the bad people, but balk at openly
> telling all of the
> population that none of them are to be trusted and
> they will be
> monitored at all times."

Yep, that's a good question. We can be pretty sure
that they haven't refrained from bugging out of the
goodness of their hearts. If it's not a Cost:Benefit
issue, then what else could it be? If you rule with a
brutal iron fist, then it doesn't matter if you piss
your people off.

> "I'm all for trying, but it will more than likely be
> Governments or -
> even worse - large corporations doing the space
> colonizing."...

Yeah, it's definitely a sticky issue. I'd prefer a
large corporation, not all of them are "eeeevil" as
many say.

"And even
> if it were just a group of idealistic and
> like-minded individuals,
> that's how all communities are in the beginning, and
> then they go bad."...

It would probably help to keep the various communities
small and "separated". Let people choose which
community and rules they would prefer to live under.
"Space-Arks" (and many of them) like Lifeboat
Foundation recommends would be a good temporary
solution...hopefully. Keep them *talking* however, I'd
prefer not to drag monkey-wars into space also.

> "What's the solution to stop a community going bad,
> ever?"

Friendly AI/universal life enhancement.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey Herrlich


--- Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 28/06/07, A B <austriaaugust at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Yeah, the cost will continue to get lower; but
> before
> > today, the cost would still have been pretty
> > significant. Placing and monitoring a "bug" in
> > millions of homes is gonna cost some cheddar. And
> > dictators often don't rule the richest of
> countries.
> 
> Not really, it's hard to think of a cheaper
> electronic device than a
> short range radio transmitter, especially if it
> didn't have to be
> small enough to hide. Any car driving around at any
> time could be an
> unmarked government vehicle with a list of
> frequencies for different
> addresses.
> 
> > Another thing that reduces the "benefit" side is
> that
> > any conspirators could easily leave the
> > house/equipment in order to plot.
> 
> Sure, but people who are really serious about their
> plot can always go
> to a public place and speak in code or something.
> The idea is to make
> it harder for plots to hatch; the fear factor alone
> of having bugs
> everywhere and knowing that there are bugs
> everywhere would have to
> have an effect.
> 
> Another factor is
> > that foreign countries like the U.S. exert
> external
> > influence (I'm not judging merit here, just
> stating a
> > fact).
> 
> Yes, but why has it dissuaded countries from bugging
> everyone but not
> from eg. killing a large proportion of their
> population, such as in
> Cambodia or Rwanda? It seems to me that they feel
> they can justify
> killing all the bad people, but balk at openly
> telling all of the
> population that none of them are to be trusted and
> they will be
> monitored at all times.
> 
> > IMO, the "best" solution to this whole conundrum
> is to
> > get as many rational (and otherwise) people as
> > possible, off this damn rock. Although gov's have
> > strong influence here too, of course. What's the
> > feasibility of creating a new self-supporting
> nation
> > outside of this planet? I'm being serious. Will
> this
> > ever be realistic or even possible?
> 
> I'm all for trying, but it will more than likely be
> Governments or -
> even worse - large corporations doing the space
> colonizing. And even
> if it were just a group of idealistic and
> like-minded individuals,
> that's how all communities are in the beginning, and
> then they go bad.
> What's the solution to stop a community going bad,
> ever?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Shape Yahoo! in your own image.  Join our Network Research Panel today!   http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7