Robert Cain writes:
2) Some kinds of technology greatly enhance our [the government's] power if we control them.
2) Some kinds of technology greatly enhance the power of those that are ruthless and dangerous.
Gee, these statements seem kinda similar...
3) Crypto Technology is a major threat to our power unless we control it.
2) Crypto technology could well be a major threat to the world's safety unless we control it.
I don't understand why I can't participate in making that decision. Why should I trust the government to do so in a way that's even close to representing my values? Isn't this supposed to be a representative democracy? How did such decisions get moved out of the realm of public debate?
4) Maybe we can stop it if we act quickly, at a cost to society that's low enough that we won't cause a major revolt
4) Maybe we can stop it if we act quickly while still providing society the benefits it wishes.
Uhh... I'd rather not pay my government to "provide" me with "benefits" like privacy; I'll take care of that myself, thanks.
5) If we pull that off, the success will help consolidate our power.
5) If we pull that off, the success will help protect society from being disrupted, damaged or held hostage by those wishing power.
Says who? Why should I believe it?
6) The public believes almost anything we tell them, at least for a while, as long as we sound sincere.
6) The public feels we are interested in their private lives and we must change that perception toward our actual concerns.
Yea right. Pull the other one. -- | GOOD TIME FOR MOVIE - GOING ||| Mike McNally <m5@tivoli.com> | | TAKE TWA TO CAIRO. ||| Tivoli Systems, Austin, TX: | | (actual fortune cookie) ||| "Like A Little Bit of Semi-Heaven" |