|
search / subscribe / upload / contact |
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| RSS-Feed Depeschen |  |
|
|
||
|
||
Date: 2001-02-06
Zukunft zwischen Orwell & Ayn Rand-.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- von Matthew Gaylor, den man irgendwo zwischen National Rifle Association & Civil Libertarians ein/un/ordnen kann, entwirft ein interessantes Bild einer Zukunft, die um welchen Preis auch immer verhindert werden muss. Über Ayn Rand, eine merkwürdige Philosophin, die durch die Gemüter vieler US-Libertarians spukt. http://www.aynrand.org/ -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- relayed by hal@finney.org via Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com> Sun, 4 Feb 2001 14:04:55 -0800 -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- Subject: George Orwell marries Ayn Rand Looking forward, we see two trends. The one mentioned in this thread is that electronic communications will become more pervasive and more difficult for law enforcement to monitor. The one mentioned in another thread is that physical surveillance will become easier and more universal. Let's speculate on the effects if these two trends continue. Most physical crimes that we face today would become essentially impossible to commit without being caught. Anything that involves leaving your house will put you under surveillance. You have no expectation of privacy in public places and gradually the fields of view of all the cameras in the world will become essentially universal. Robbery, assault, murder in all their variations will be performed in public view. Some physical crimes might still be possible, if they involve subtle manipulations. You might be able to get away with poisoning someone or releasing some deadly virus, without your actions being noticeably suspicious. You might also be able to shoot someone from concealment in some cases. And of course some criminals don't mind being caught, or even kill themselves in the act. But the vast majority of crime would be eliminated. At the same time, information-based "crimes" would flourish. It will be essentially impossible to keep information from spreading. This would include information piracy of videos, music and books. It would also cover "forbidden" information like how to make bombs, but since you can't use the bombs without being caught, that won't matter much. Drugs are an interesting case. On the one hand, drug smuggling and sales would be extremely difficult due to physical surveillance. But on the other hand, information about growing and manufacturing drugs would be widely available. We might see a shift towards drugs which can be produced and consumed at home. Drug dealing would no longer be big business, but drug use might continue at levels similar to the present day. One big question is whether this situation would be stable. There seems to be an inherent contradiction in an Orwellian physical world where social controls are nearly 100% effective existing beside a libertarian virtual world where there are almost no controls whatsoever. We might see a desire to extend physical control into the virtual world, as with proposals that people submit to surveillance of their online activities, use encryption which can be broken by the government, etc. In recent years we have been moving away from these proposals, but this could change. Or, we could see that the libertarian electronic world undermines the authoritative physical one, as more of the economy becomes based on information. People would engage in economic transactions which the physical world can't monitor, and more importantly, can't tax. This was the original Cypherpunk model but it remains to be seen whether this could actually work. Looking out farther, we have to throw nanotech into the mix, which would theoretically expand the range of things you could construct at home using just information. And before that we will be faced with "bathtub biotech" which is on the horizon if not here already, allowing people to cook up their own biotech cocktails at home using information found on the net. How do you feel about this Orwell/libertarian world? Does the existence of virtual freedom compensate for the possibility of increased social control outside your home? And do you think it would be stable, or would one side or the other win out? Hal *********************************************************************** *** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per month) Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ *********************************************************************** *** -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- - -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- edited by published on: 2001-02-06 comments to office@quintessenz.at subscribe Newsletter - -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- 
|
|
|
 |
CURRENTLY RUNNING |
q/Talk 1.Juli: The Danger of Software Users Don't Control
|
|
|
!WATCH OUT! |
bits4free 14.Juli 2011: OpenStreetMap Erfinder Steve Coast live in Wien
|
|