[extropy-chat] Transparency vs. terrorism

[Samantha Atkins]

On Aug 6, 2005, at 9:00 PM, spike wrote:

>> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Technotranscendence
>> To: ExI chat list
>> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Transparency vs. terrorism
>>
>> On Saturday, August 06, 2005 8:27 PM Dan Clemmensen dgc at cox.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?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dan
>>
>
> 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.

Libertarianism is not defined as limiting the power of government.    
The snoopy LOLs cannot do as much damage with less power to legally  
initiate force or direct so many aspects of life  being in the hands  
of government.

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

This is not the real debate.  The real debate is how much freedom we  
are guaranteed.  LOLs plus government history of severely abusing  
freedom is a problem.  The solution is limit the governmental abuses  
much more.

> Mike Lorrey
> and others have argued that freedom of speech (and many other
> freedoms) depends on freedom of anonymity.

They do in the face of an abusive government.  If the government  
could be sufficiently tamed (or dismembered) then anonymity would be  
less of a requirement.

> 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.
>

None there perhaps.  In what may be done with the information your  
freedom and very life can be heavily impacted.

> 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.
>
> spike
>
> 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?  s
>

Bullshit, rancor, sniping and so on are snoozy or worse.  But  
guarding a list against such takes more work that noone seems willing  
or able to do.

- samantha