[extropy-chat] Wireheading

[Samantha Atkins]

On Oct 5, 2006, at 4:42 AM, BillK wrote:

> On 10/5/06, Samantha Atkins wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 2, 2006, at 3:16 AM, BillK wrote:
>>> You do realise that anything significant that you post on extropy- 
>>> chat
>>> (or anywhere on the internet) is likely to immediately update your
>>> Homeland Security Profile?
>>
>> The day I live in fear of these meat heads and their silly profiles  
>> is
>> the day I disappear completely.
>>
>
> That is an admirable political posture to take, but back in the real
> world a higher level of caution is more advisable.
>

I don't think so.

> You don't seem to appreciate the power of surveillance and information
> gathering available to the authorities now or in the very near future.

I appreciate it quite fully but I refuse to be cowed by it.  If I am  
doing something actually illegal I will take countermeasures  but not  
for mere opinion posts.  At least not yet.

> Advances in DNA analysis are now expected to solve tens of thousands
> of crimes from many years ago and many more future crimes.

What does that have to do with what I write online?

> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5404402.stm>
> Advances in data-mining accumulate people's online incriminating
> history so that it is available at the press of a key.
>

So?

> In the 'war on terror' environment, self-censorship seems just common
> sense to avoid attracting unnecessary attention from officialdom. You
> certainly don't want to get on the list for special attention by
> airport security.
>

I will not live in that much fear of my own government without more  
provocation that to date.  YMMV.  With sufficient provocation I would  
be more cautious.   Screw TAS.  I don't need to fly enough to censor  
myself.



> Obviously the authorities cannot send the hit squads after every
> member of the population. Posting on the web won't get your door
> kicked in at 4 am by police in riot gear. Not unless you are *very*
> criminal in your postings.
>
> But just in case the police ever call me in for an 'interview', or I
> am caught dropping litter someday, I would prefer that their computer
> file on me didn't display lots of stuff about x, y or z.
>

So you are already accepting lost freedom.  What are you getting in  
exchange?


> For some activities, running a computer security check is now
> standard. Working with children is a hot button issue at present in
> the UK.  As security checks become easier and more detailed, getting
> the job you want will get more difficult. Like getting a political
> appointment, or on a School Board, or a local  government post, or
> helping with kids holidays or school trips, etc. They don't have to
> tell you why you don't get the job, either. You will just find more
> doors being closed to you.
>

Again I refuse to live in fear of nameless strangers.

> I think a lot of the kids on MySpace are going to have some growing-up
> pains when all the personal stuff they dump there comes back to haunt
> them. Government security people are not the only ones who can run web
> searches. Employers, lawyers, press, finance companies, banks, you
> name it. Searching someone's history will soon become standard
> procedure. Google knows (nearly) everything. And Echelon (or whatever
> they call it now) has access to much more than Google.
>

As surveillance becomes deeper and more pervasive we must pass laws to  
severely restrain how the growing information pool may be used against  
us.  We also must repeal a lot of laws whose effects would be  
extremely pernicious if more widely enforced as improved surveillance  
makes possible.  Without that we are in deep danger.  But self- 
censorship is not a viable solution.

- samantha