Dnia wtorek, 21 stycznia 2014 14:17:07 Troy Benjegerdes pisze:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:32:53PM +0100, rysiek wrote:
Dnia poniedziałek, 20 stycznia 2014 23:29:46 Troy Benjegerdes pisze:
Let me posit that we need humans that act more like ethical beings, that have insights that go beyond the logic, rules, and reason that seem to, well, govern the keeping of secrets. I see a disturbing trend towards people who appear to be more human rule-and-emotional-reactivity execution units than empowered beings with free and unpredictable thought and discernment.
The great thing that Snowden did was get more of the general public engaged and involved, and for the various types of infiltrators to have any lasting effect, there must be cypherpoliticians, architecting secure legal codes and blocking legislative trojans.
Assassination Politics is an interesting armchair quarterback game, but I think what we really need is some of that theory applied to Election politics, with some down-in-the dirt wrestling with campaign finance.
Oooooh. Oooh. "I just had a brainwave", to quote Chief Inspector Hubbard.
How about use the very same mechanism as assassination market, but for voting? Betting on who will win the next election, generally or in a each district, etc? Creating cash incentives not for politicians (well, also, they could bet themselves after all!), but activists, or other people that might help get somebody elected? Pooling resources, but not in a candidate's pocket. This is a perfect example of "It's hard to understand something your salary (or campaign finances) depend on not understanding", cause I never saw this until you pointed it out. Fortunately I still have a few braincells that fired.
This is brilliant... Get more money in politics, but in a way the politicians can never touch it. Oh sure, some will, but they will quickly be strung up by the 'clean campaigns' lynch mob.
Well, ideas are cheap, so if anybody feels compelled to implement that, go for it, it's Public Domain now. ;)
We need cypherpunks pointing out the futility of more reactive campaign finance regulations that plug the holes we saw last year. We need speech, and code as speech, and a debate about does the First Amendment cover the right to speak in code, and does the Second Amendment give us the right to keep and bear a well-regulated open-source drone Militia?
Well, funny thing that. I wrote on it: http://rys.io/en/54
The tl;dr is -- even though traditional RC planes are better-fitted to be used as "terrorist tools" (faster, more load, etc), it's *copters that will get banned first, as they empower people to "watch the watchers".
Except I get to play the "Farmers need open-source drones to keep those anti-GMO terr'ists out" police state card, and watch the competing interests tie themselves up in knots while activists download the code I use to "Protect America's Food"
"The Police will handle that for you, Dear Farmer. Now hand over the drone that you no longer need. You're not a terr'ist, are ya?.." -- Pozdr rysiek