From arebentisch@lxdesystems.com Fri Jul 6 02:39:59 2018 From: Andre Rebentisch To: cypherpunks-legacy@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Re: [liberationtech] Privacy, Moglen, @ioerror, #rp12 Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2018 02:39:59 +0000 Message-ID: <172289272613.3881296.5141985831555270647.generated@mail.pglaf.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6071976125063084577==" --===============6071976125063084577== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am 10.05.2012 18:40, schrieb Lee Alley: >> Your model is being tested in Somalia. ;-) > > Also depends on which bit of Somalia you mean ;-) > http://www.economist.com/blogs/baobab/2011/06/aid-and-somaliland > > +1 for this discussion! Fascinating and informative! Thanks :-) I do share the general scepticism against government regulators. It makes a d= ifference if you argue markets are contestable by virtue (which is true to a certain degree) to prevent regulation or enact policies s= o that markets ought to become contestable. In the 1990ths cyberlibertarianism was widespread, as we had to struggle =20 with the old state telecom monopolies, analog governments and crypto =20 export regulations or even the remains of central planning. After 911 the=20 state security paradigm set the agenda where civil society took the =20 pro-freedom narrative. In the past five years old postponed debates =20 reemerged that found new commercial allies (blocking, child porn, =20 filtering, trade funnel). The surveillance and privacy debate of the =20 1980ths onwards was mostly focussed on state interest in our individual =20 data, today companies harvest data (made available to the state). In the =20 Arab spring the targets are geriatric regimes and a rebellious youth. The main question for me is how to get "good governance" in a field =20 characterized by Schumpeterian competition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction How to make governance side with the challengers, not the old bulls. For =20 instance 10 years ago Google was still weak in lobbying. How do we avoid=20 that regulators shoot in the cradle of emerging technology firms, add risks=20 and strangulate emerging models? The toolset of open market policies=20 (pro-competition, pro-openstandards, pro unlicensed spectrum, pro-open=20 internet..) has insufficient support in multistakeholder fora. Patent=20 regimes slow down the transition because challengers do not have large=20 portfolios. I originate from a city that was mostly dependend on the typewriter =20 industry. All the companies a domestic legislator would have consulted =20 back then about the future of word processing are now gone. When =20 governments do not know what the dominant players of tomorrow would be it=20 still makes sense to be first. Being first implies that you naturally =20 would regulate against the current dominant business players to path the =20 way for the challengers. Best, Andri _______________________________________________ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech(a)lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click abov= e) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator = in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: https://mailman.stanfo= rd.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech ----- End forwarded message ----- --=20 Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 --===============6071976125063084577==--