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

Thu Jun 28 22:52:39 UTC 2007

Eugen Leitl wrote:

> "Enforcing violations? Of course the next step is to
> add
> execution capability to the platforms currently only
> used
> for intelligence."

Eh?? I'm not encouraging it. I was still referring to
the dictatorship example.

> "You sure you can hack firmware upgrade over air? 
> That's talking breaking cryptographic systems, Sir."

No. I don't know anything about it. I just assumed
that someone could hardwire an input loop or something
to that effect.

> "Past and current capabilities are irrelevant. Near
> future
> capabilities are important."

But my discussion with Stathis began on his question
of why no dictator of the past has bugged his entire
country. My intention was to show that there is no
fundamental barrier to this happening in the
non-distant future.

> "It really doesn't matter whether your superpersonal
> organization
> unit is of corporate or governmental origin. On the
> long run, 
> they're all the same."

But eventually it would be preferable to buy your
property outright and do what you want with it.

> "Classical 1984. And 2007, of course. People *are*
> afraid."

Not too afraid though, or they'd be raising hell about
it. People have more important things to think about,
like American Idol.

> "Space and monkeys don't mix."

But monkeys and molecular manufacturing mix even less
well. Except as a slushy.

> "I have no idea what universal life enhancement is,
> but I presume it's based on same bad thinking as
> friendly AI."

I meant it as what would follow from a Friendly AI, if
one is possible. Is it that you believe Friendly AI
isn't possible? It may be turn out to be impossible,
but do we know that for certain at this point?

Sincerely,

Jeffrey Herrlich

--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 08:07:20AM -0700, A B wrote:
> > 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."
> 
> Any bug you pay for is effectively free to its
> users.
> If you play it smart, the vassal will even be
> grateful.
> But that bug is sooo shiny and pretty! How can I not
> covet the bug?
>  
> > It's not just the cost of the device. It's the
> cost of
> > monitoring, repairing, and enforcing violations.
> And
> 
> You don't monitor. You record everything you can,
> and record the rest based on data mined clusters.
> Storing
> data is cheap, and you can always recrunch with more
> OPs and newer algorithms later on. The one thing you
> 
> don't do is to delete, ever. That's a cardinal sin.
> (Poor NSA choking when trying to drink from the
> firehose?
> Give me a fucking break).
> 
> Enforcing violations? Of course the next step is to
> add
> execution capability to the platforms currently only
> used
> for intelligence. 
> 
> I'll be the judge, I'll be the jury,
> Said the cunning old Fury,
> I'll try the whole cause,
> And condemn you to death.
> 
> > then there's the problem of countering hacking
> issues.
> 
> You sure you can hack firmware upgrade over air? 
> That's talking breaking cryptographic systems, Sir.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Past and current capabilities are irrelevant. Near
> future
> capabilities are important.
>  
> > > "Sure, but people who are really serious about
> their
> > > plot can always go
> > > to a public place and speak in code or
> something.
> 
> To agree on a code takes communication. Even mere
> traffic
> analysis will pick it up and issue arrest warrants
> even 
> before you get into your bunny slippers.
> 
> > > 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."
> 
> Classical 1984. And 2007, of course. People *are*
> afraid.
>  
> > 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
> 
> Differenet mechanisms, but in principle a fully
> automated
> state can do away with its citizen-units.
> 
> > > they can justify
> > > killing all the bad people, but balk at openly
> 
> What does "bad" mean?
> 
> > > telling all of the
> > > population that none of them are to be trusted
> and
> > > they will be
> > > monitored at all times."
> 
> This is precisely what is being made binding law,
> today.
>  
> > 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.
> 
> You have to start slow and gentle, first.
>  
> > > "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.
> 
> It really doesn't matter whether your superpersonal
> organization
> unit is of corporate or governmental origin. On the
> long run, 
> they're all the same.
>  
> > "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.
> 
> Space and monkeys don't mix.
>  
> > > "What's the solution to stop a community going
> bad,
> > > ever?"
> > 
> > Friendly AI/universal life enhancement.
> 
> I have no idea what universal life enhancement is,
> but I presume it's based on same bad thinking as
> friendly AI.
>  
> 
> -- 
> Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
> http://leitl.org
>
______________________________________________________________
> ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com
> http://postbiota.org
> 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443
> 8B29 F6BE
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 

____________________________________________________________________________________
Need a vacation? Get great deals
to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
http://travel.yahoo.com/