Re: Collection of personal info
At 1:49 AM 9/7/95, Mac Norton wrote:
Tim and I have corresponded about this previously, and again he neglects the distinction between collection and storage, on the one hand, and retrival and dissemination, on the other. If you do the latter, your content better be accurate.
That's the difference in Tim and TRW. So far.:)
I don't really disagree with Mac, at least practically speaking. (At a much deeper level, much deeper in terms of philosophy, I'm not even sure _disseminators_ of information have any real necessity to be correct. This is the issue of truth, reputation, etc. that we discuss so often. But, I admit that the legal system does not support my anarcho-capitalist extreme position, which is why I say I don't disagree with Mac, "practically speaking.") However, even if I were to start distributing the results of "Tim's BlackNet Dossier Service," I don't think there's any justification for people insisting that they have a right to "inspect" my records. I think the current U.S. law is not too far from my own views. The credit reporting agencies have an obvious interest in having accurate information--except for the folks in the Witness program--and will eventually correct errors. (Not everyone is happy with the speed, but this is life in a world of finite resources; and I acknowledge that there are pathological cases of incorrect identity, etc.) I still favor free market alternatives to top-down government "protection." And, lest anyone think I'm lapsing in my basic beliefs, I lean toward throwing out _all_ laws about libel, slander, and false information. After all, "what is truth?," to coin a phrase. --Tim May ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
On Wed, 6 Sep 1995, Timothy C. May wrote:
I don't really disagree with Mac, at least practically speaking.
(At a much deeper level, much deeper in terms of philosophy, I'm not even sure _disseminators_ of information have any real necessity to be correct. This is the issue of truth, reputation, etc. that we discuss so often. But, I admit that the legal system does not support my anarcho-capitalist extreme position, which is why I say I don't disagree with Mac, "practically speaking.")
Well, scratch me deeply enough, I'm not sure I'd disagree with Tim, "philosophically speaking." The problem is, as all the truly wise philosophers recognized, we must live in the world. And given the number of us who must do so, that entails rules. With that caveat, none of the below is insufferable to me. MacN
However, even if I were to start distributing the results of "Tim's BlackNet Dossier Service," I don't think there's any justification for people insisting that they have a right to "inspect" my records.
I think the current U.S. law is not too far from my own views. The credit reporting agencies have an obvious interest in having accurate information--except for the folks in the Witness program--and will eventually correct errors. (Not everyone is happy with the speed, but this is life in a world of finite resources; and I acknowledge that there are pathological cases of incorrect identity, etc.)
I still favor free market alternatives to top-down government "protection."
And, lest anyone think I'm lapsing in my basic beliefs, I lean toward throwing out _all_ laws about libel, slander, and false information. After all, "what is truth?," to coin a phrase.
--Tim May
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
And, lest anyone think I'm lapsing in my basic beliefs, I lean toward throwing out _all_ laws about libel, slander, and false information. After all, "what is truth?," to coin a phrase.
--Tim May
Truth is that which can be verified to be reproducable by indipendant and unbiased parties. All else is opinion.
Doesn't make it true, in Tim's sense--just makes it verifiable.
MacN
On Wed, 6 Sep 1995, Jim Choate wrote:
Truth is that which can be verified to be reproducable by indipendant and unbiased parties. All else is opinion.
What exactly is Tim's sense to you? Perhaps Tim could clarify more clearly what he means by 'truth'. To me it sounds like he is saying that there is some viewpoint that is absolute. I no more believe in absolute viewpoints than I believe in absolute coordinates. If it is the 'truth' what makes it unverifiable? If I can look at it and claim it isn't the truth (because I can't verify it) how does one know it is the truth then? What seperates this unverifiable truth from opinion (which is equally unverifiable by definition)? What is the litmus test? And how do we know the litmus test is true? (I see a circle coming up) For example, lets say that I have a accident with another motorist. We each tell our story but they are different (or the same for that matter). Which is true? I would hold neither. The incident as described by either of us is simply our recollection of happenstance, in other words our opinion of what occured. It is not what occured. The only truth that could be derived would be that an accident had occured. Why? Because we would have two bent cars that anyone who cared enough could verify. The truth is not some mighty sword we can wield to reveal some shrowded mystery. It is the realization that the world is a complicated place and we deal with incomplete facts (ie fog of war). From this meager litany of facts we try to derive some conclusion that allows us to control our environment. Truth is a mundane everyday sort of thing, not some magical force. The truth will not free you nor will it guarantee a better tomorrow. The whole argument breaks down to the simple question of whether it is possible to know anything absolutely. If it is possible to know something absolutely what else to call it but fact (and therefore true)? If it isn't a fact then it is either a lie (ie the inversion of truth) or else an opinion. I don't see how there can be any other division than these three. Another way to look at it is to say that if it involves faith it can't be truth. Truth can't be dependant on faith (ie observer). [Looking over this I realize that we are talking about a form of computability]
participants (3)
-
Jim Choate -
Mac Norton -
tcmay＠got.net