[ExI] The NSA's new data center
kellycoinguy at gmail.com
Sun Apr 1 07:55:15 UTC 2012
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:57 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 09:16:44AM -0600, Kelly Anderson wrote:
>> In the LONG term, isn't absolute complete transparency of everyone and
>> everything the only real answer? The trend seems to be away from
> No. Because it asymmetrically empowers the bad guys. Sharing is
> a voluntary act. You need to work to share. In order to retain
> your secrets, you do nothing.
Sharing with my friends, and keeping such things secret from the bad
guys... That requires effort. More and more effort every day. And I
don't think it's going to get any easier.
> Think secrecy is bad? Abolish anonymous voting, then.
That is an interesting point. And perhaps we should, but how would you
guarantee no blow back... that's a tough one. Of course anyone with a
third of a brain could figure out who I'm not going to vote for.
> Military intelligence data and Apple campus should be open to
> everybody. Members of Congress should be fine with 24 hour
> video surveillance, with full GPS track, and IDs of whatever
> people they interacted with. Everybody should know what
> the Lawrence Livermore guys are cooking. I mean, everybody
> should have access to the plans and the plutonium storage
> facility. Nuclear weapons want to be free, and so want human
In the future, despite our best efforts, such technological secrets
will be available to everyone. No matter what we do now. That's the
>> personal privacy, away from government secrecy, towards open sharing.
>> Is this trend something that can be stopped? Is it something that
> I don't know which universe you live in, but I see the exact opposite.
> *This* trend needs to be stopped.
I'll give you a counter example. IF my medical records were not
protected by HIPPA laws, I would be able to get better medical care.
If my medical data were available publicly in a database, then smart
bots could electronically "screen" me for various medical problems,
and I might be made aware of an illness way ahead of time.
>> SHOULD be stopped? When individuals obtain the requisite technology to
>> wipe out all intelligent life, is privacy sustainable?
> Have you ever tried to account for fissibles in a processing facility?
> And transport? They do transport plutonium in unmarked trucks, on public
> roads. I think everybody should know the exact transport route. Just to
> prevent that plutonium falls in the wrong hands. (The only right hands
> are *mine*).
Don't be silly. I'm not saying that there isn't anything that
shouldn't be kept private for a period of time... Where the plutonium
trucks are NOW should be hard to find out. Where the plutonium trucks
have been... there's a good argument to be made that everyone should
know that. Maybe.
>> Asking it a different way. If everyone in the world had a button, that
>> if pushed would end the world, how long would the world last? Knowing
>> that the answer is "seconds, if that long"... and knowing that
>> individuals will likely obtain such technology some day in the not too
>> distant future... Could privacy survive in such a world? Should
>> privacy be allowed to survive in such a world?
> Why do you want to live as Vinge's Emergents? You yearn to become
> human automation?
>> My motto, "Privacy is dead, get over it."
> If you think that, you're not just one of the useful idiots.
> You're actually the enemy. You're the enabler. Worse, you're
> a hypocrite. Because you will not give up your SS number, your
> banking details and your tax returns (the real ones, not the
> ones you filed), your medical record including full DNA
> sequence (your insurance would dearly love that), full multimedia
> coverage of your sex acts and all your transactions, in full video and
The world isn't enabled to handle all of those details today. However,
if they were, I have no problem sharing all of those things. And I do
file my taxes fairly, other than one year when I got bad tax advise,
and then I payed too much.
>> If DCFS would install and monitor cameras in every room of my house, I
>> would let them. Why? Because it would protect me from their wild
>> imaginations! I'd rather let them in on all my so called "secrets"
> You realize that burglars would pay money to have access to that
Of course. Maybe you are convincing me that some things should be kept
private. However, I think that where we have those lines now is just
silly towards too much privacy.
>> than have them assume that I have secrets that I don't possess in
>> actuality. That's because they have absolute power over everything I
>> really care about, my family. I might request that I have my own
>> little private space for bathing and personal time... but eventually,
> Not granted.
>> I think I could get over even that. Look at how quickly people on
>> reality TV get used to the cameras and just get on with their lives.
>> We'll ALL be reality TV stars in the future is my prediction.
> Please kill me now.
Look, here is the bottom line. If you live long enough, eventually
there will be some part of the future that you REALLY don't like. It
is one reason why so many old people are grumpy about the way things
are now. If you want LONG life, you're going to have to adjust and
give up some (and eventually most) of what you think is important
>> In no way would I give up rights, but I don't see privacy as an
>> absolute right. Then maybe we'll get over this idea that we're not
>> just smart bipedal apes, but rather somehow special.
> I think you might have a cordyceps infestation. We need to dump this
> fellow, quick, before he sprouts spores!
Look. You brought up the thing about burglars, right? Well, if the
burglars don't have any privacy either, then they are going to be damn
easy to catch. Maybe burglary will become a thing of the past. I don't
want burglars to know about my habits today because they still have
privacy rights. When they don't, then I don't need privacy rights to
protect myself from them. At least the need is lessened.
More information about the extropy-chat