[ZS] Re: On the question of coercion (was: Commentary on the Consensus International Principles)

[Lodewijk andri de la porte]

2012/9/18 Spencer Campbell <lacertilian at gmail.com>

>
>
>> It might be of interest to take a person's life and present it, The
>> Truman Show like it's creator had never imagined. I'd suggest producing
>> such content to be banned.
>>
>
> I don't think that's a tenable idea, either practically or
> philosophically. Nothing short of a 1984 regime would be enough to enforce
> the ban, and Truman Shows have considerable value from several different
> dimensions -- entertainment, artistic, historic, even self-analytical.
>

You forget this, in some senses, IS a 1984 regime. These shows can still be
made after someone dies, retaining most of the value without the
devestating effects it has on the subject. It's a means to preserve a new
shape of privacy. A form of security through obscurity, the only form of
security I usually find exists in real life situations.


> 2012/9/18 R|diger Koch

Fine, as long as webcams are in the board rooms of the world, including the
> oval office. As long as black Mercs come only with clear windows and
> particularly, and most importantly as long as it is not a criminal offense
> to do complete life logging, including the police officer beating you to
> pulp for not quick enough jumping out of his way.
>
> As long as surveillance only means that any attempt of yours to watch the
> watchers is being watched and sanctioned, this has to be a red line.


A twofold of laws will make this happen as much as it can.
1) Never may the recording of an event be illegal in and of itself.
This is a "self governance" law. Limiting the governement and police's own
power. It mustn't be too powerfull as to prevent people claiming access
2) Any person, legal or otherwise, must make available it's survailance
records, freely, in accordance with common conventions.
Meaning that if I do record something I must make it publicly available on,
say, a distributed open file network. Usenet would be the inadequate
present day example. In whatever format and form is common at the time.
Freely effectively bans propriatary formats and prevents copyright-ish laws
from securing it. Untarget recordings mean survailance style always-on
recording. This law would allow one to keep his/her home video's private
but requires sharing of the always-on webcam in front of the house. An
underlying assumption is that we'll have widespectrum radio-camera's that
see everything the birds do now, and a lot that they don't, even through
the walls of buildings.

Never, I repeat, NEVER, will board rooms of the importants Anu wishes to be
public become public. Worst case scenario Space-One will offer "private
conversation" trips that pass by the dark side of the moon for the rough
talks. Worst because that gives an unfair advantage to those most motivated
to have privacy, privacy isn't worth as much to the Green Energy Consurtum
as it'll be to Mean Oil Corp. But it's likely nearly as usefull.

-- 
-- 
Zero State mailing list:
http://groups.google.com/group/DoctrineZero




----- End forwarded message -----
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> 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