RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
Forwarded message:
From: Matthew James Gering <mgering@ecosystems.net> Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone Alternative Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:29:47 -0800
Petro wrote:
However, Privacy + Freedom == Anarchy, or close enough to be indistinguishable.
This is silly.
for privacy. In fact there is good claim that privacy will not exist in anarchy except by those that decide to use the tools and methods to achieve it -- cat and mouse game same as today, except the corporate cats are bound by economics (the value of data to them versus the cost to obtain it) whereas government cats are not.
They're bound by economics and nothing else, not even the government cats. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 6:01 PM -0500 on 11/4/98, Jim Choate wrote, from the bowels of my killfile:
They're bound by economics and nothing else, not even the government cats.
Amen. A government is just another economic actor. A very large economic actor with lots of guns and a monopoly on force, but an economic actor nonetheless. Reality is not optional. Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
At 6:01 PM -0500 11/4/98, Jim Choate wrote:
Forwarded message:
From: Matthew James Gering <mgering@ecosystems.net> Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone Alternative Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:29:47 -0800
Petro wrote:
However, Privacy + Freedom == Anarchy, or close enough to be indistinguishable.
This is silly.
And you're a fool, but I can be serious. Try reading what I said, and (I know this is difficult for you) THINK ABOUT IT. Anarchy is usually defined as the absense of government. What exactly makes up a "government", what are it's defining characteristics? Simply a device for reallocating wealth?--Insufficient, there are lots of mechanisms for that. A body that lays down standards and rules of conduct?--Sounds like a church or industry consortium to me. A heirarchical (sp?) structure that uses fear, propaganda and force to reallocate wealth, enforce standards and rules of conduct, and other things at whim (for varying values of "whim", from the "whim" of a dictator, to the "whim" of the "body politic"). Now, THAT is a government. Yes, some of what it enforces is probably a good idea (i.e. everyone driving on the same side of the road, &etc) some if it is kinda silly (don't smoke dope, or you're going to jail (Here, have a beer)), and some of it is downright stupid and shortsighted (encryption policy, not drinking beer out of a bucket on the sidewalk). Anarchy is not having to be effected by that, being "free" to follow what one thinks is right. How one gets to that state is not really relevent. My statement above simply lays out the position having Privacy (for large enough values of privacy to be meaningful) and Freedom (for large enough values of Freedom to be meaningful) one is effectively in an anarchistic state. That is what "close enough to be meaningful" meant. Privacy is (at least it's my understanding) the ability to hide or mask information in such a way that only people you wish to have access to it do. There are varying degrees of Privacy, from "Well, at least they don't analyize what's in my feeces, even if they do watch me take it" to being able to completely hide any information at all from anyone. Freedom is the ability to make choices, and exercise those choices. Just like privacy, there are varying degrees of freedom, from the convict who can chose wheter he/she wants to eat that slop or go hungry, to the president of the US who can (apparently) bomb people with impunity, lie under oath & etc. When the amount of freedom and privacy is high enough, it is indistinguishable from anarchy. No one, wheter part of some heirarchial structure or not can force you to do certain things, or to live a certain way, or to pay a given percentage of your time (labor, money, life) to them for "services" of dubious value. Now, I realize that if I were just speaking to Jim, this would be a waste of time, because he consistently fails to read entire paragraphs, misunderstands simple terms, and doesn't always manage to connect dependent clauses, but there may be some out there who could provide a reasonable critique of what I am saying, and may even be able to give me some food for thought.
for privacy. In fact there is good claim that privacy will not exist in anarchy except by those that decide to use the tools and methods to achieve
Privacy doesn't exist anywhere unless one chooses to use the tools and methods to acheive it. If I don't want privacy, or if it isn't of value to me, I shouldn't have to be bound by it. If I do want it, I should be able take steps (analagous to putting up curtains on a bay-window) to secure it. Governments cannot provide large values of privacy, it's not how they work. They can limit exposure, but that is more of a false privacy than real privacy. -- "To sum up: The entire structure of antitrust statutes in this country is a jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is a product: (a) of a gross misinterpretation of history, and (b) of rather naïve, and certainly unrealistic, economic theories." Alan Greenspan, "Anti-trust" http://www.ecosystems.net/mgering/antitrust.html Petro::E-Commerce Adminstrator::Playboy Ent. Inc.::petro@playboy.com
participants (3)
-
Jim Choate -
Petro -
Robert Hettinga