Decius wrote:
] In protest of TIA John Gilmore provides Poindexter's home
] address, phone number, and aerial photographs of his house!

Heh. I actually think there should be an open project to track the relationships, whereabouts, and other items of interest of the elites in the society. I think we would find out some very very interesting information.

Reknamorken wrote:
] Decius wrote:
] ] In protest of TIA John Gilmore provides Poindexter's home
] ] address, phone number, and aerial photographs of his house!
]
] Heh. I actually think there should be an open project to
] track the relationships, whereabouts, and other items of
] interest of the elites in the society. I think we would find
] out some very very interesting information.

Sometimes I can't tell when you are being sarcastic.

Decius wrote:
] Reknamorken wrote:
] ] Decius wrote:
] ] ] In protest of TIA John Gilmore provides Poindexter's home
] ] ] address, phone number, and aerial photographs of his
] house!
] ]
] ] Heh. I actually think there should be an open project to
] ] track the relationships, whereabouts, and other items of
] ] interest of the elites in the society. I think we would
] find
] ] out some very very interesting information.
]
] Sometimes I can't tell when you are being sarcastic.

That's not sarcasm. I'm talking about counter-counter-intelligence.

Reknamorken wrote:
]
] That's not sarcasm. I'm talking about
] counter-counter-intelligence.

Hrm, well then I get to respond.

First off, I agree with Tim May that the people who are focusing on Poindexter are missing the point. He is just some guy. He is not even running an operational system. He is just developing a technology.

This project would be a bad idea if it was run by Mother Teresa. Don't let people get it in their head that this would be OK if he wasn't running it.

The policy decisions, and the actual administration of this thing if it were to go live, would be handled by a totally different set of people.

What Gilmore has done is pretty much a serious violation of Poindexter's personal privacy.

Imagine if that was your address, phone number, and map up on that site. There are enough people who are pissed off about this that if it were me, I would be seriously afraid that some idiot might show up at my house and try to hurt me and my family. My thought would be that there ought to be a law.

And there OUGHT to be a law.

If its not ok for people to be running around with MY personal information in this manner, then its not OK for people to be running around with Poindexter's personal information in this manner.

Yes, there OUGHT to be a law, and thats the whole point. Poindexter is building a surveillance system, and Gilmore wishes to make him think critically about it by putting him on the other side of the fence.

As a demonstration of a political point its interesting. As a general matter of policy, its not.

If I should be safe from this sort of intrusion into my personal life, then everyone else should as well, no matter how much or how little money or power they might have.

As it stands, it is only illegal to do this if you are inciting violence against the people you are providing information about, and even that case was controversial.

I'm not exactly sure what the right answers are. I know that there are all kinds of rules about what I can do with a company's copyrighted media, but there are little or no rules about what that company can do with my personal information. I don't think thats right. However, if we set a standard, it should apply to everyone. companies, individual citizens, rich, poor, black, white.

We cannot in the same breath argue that it is wrong for someone to do this thing to us while we do it to others. At that point it becomes us versus them, and there is no fundamental moral basis from which we are operating.

Decius wrote:
] Reknamorken wrote:
] ]
] ] That's not sarcasm. I'm talking about
] ] counter-counter-intelligence.
]
] Hrm, well then I get to respond.
]
] First off, I agree with Tim May that the people who are
] focusing on Poindexter are missing the point. He is just some
] guy. He is not even running an operational system. He is just
] developing a technology.

No they are aren't. They are just missing Tim May's point. You are missing theirs: criminals shouldn't be in government and they sure as hell shouldn't be running projects that require some level of integrity when they have proved they have none.

Technology is not developed in a vacuum. It's important that Poindexter is involved. Now, granted, it's not as important a point as Tim May's point but it's still A) valid and B) important.

] This project would be a bad idea if it was run by Mother
] Teresa. Don't let people get it in their head that this would
] be OK if he wasn't running it.

Who said that?

] The policy decisions, and the actual administration of this
] thing if it were to go live, would be handled by a totally
] different set of people.

Who would essentially be unaware of any backdoors, trojans, flaws, information leakage, poor design, intentially poor design, and god know's how many other possible security issues. Ones exploitable by outside or internal agencies. It's not like the feds are white knights, dude.

] What Gilmore has done is pretty much a serious violation of
] Poindexter's personal privacy.
]
] Imagine if that was your address, phone number, and map up on
] that site. There are enough people who are pissed off about
] this that if it were me, I would be seriously afraid that some
] idiot might show up at my house and try to hurt me and my
] family. My thought would be that there ought to be a law.
]
] And there OUGHT to be a law.
]
] If its not ok for people to be running around with MY personal
] information in this manner, then its not OK for people to be
] running around with Poindexter's personal information in this
] manner.

Now this is where we diverge significantly. How are you going to stop them? Everyone has some amount of information about public figures. Celebrities and whatnot. The information exists. How can you stop it's leakage? What's a public figure supposed to be? Invisible? Publishing it is a problem? There are public maps showing where celebrities live too. So what?

From here on out I'll assume that it's somehow feasible to do what you are suggesting. Just for the sake of argument.

] Yes, there OUGHT to be a law, and thats the whole point.
] Poindexter is building a surveillance system, and Gilmore
] wishes to make him think critically about it by putting him on
] the other side of the fenc... [ Read More (0.5k in body) ]

Reknamorken wrote:

] Technology is not developed in a vacuum. It's important that
] Poindexter is involved. Now, granted, it's not as important a
] point as Tim May's point but it's still A) valid and B)
] important.

I agree, but its a separate issue. Poindexter is about Poindexter and not about TIA.

] ] This project would be a bad idea if it was run by Mother
] ] Teresa. Don't let people get it in their head that this
] would
] ] be OK if he wasn't running it.
]
] Who said that?

Tim May did.

] Who would essentially be unaware of any backdoors, trojans,
] flaws, information leakage, poor design, intentially poor
] design, and god know's how many other possible security
] issues. Ones exploitable by outside or internal agencies.
] It's not like the feds are white knights, dude.

Would this problem be any different if Poindexter wasn't running the show? The problem is the project, regardless of who is running it. I would be opposed to it even if you were running it. :) (This issue, however, is sort of a side topic...)

] Now this is where we diverge significantly. How are you going
] to stop them?

I haven't thought enough about it. Its not really the goal of my post to argue this specific matter. I'm more interested in the general ideas about who has what rights. I'll file this specific thing for more thought later.

The reality is that:
Most of what you really want is available in open sources if you can amass the resources to collect and sift it.
You will run into the law if you decide to start surveilling people.

] How do you know this is Gilmore's intention? I didn't read
] that in the posting. I guess I'll go back and see.

Gillmore's suggestion is that the government ought not to be building something like TIA. This implies a policy decision. I am extrapolating that this is not bad BECAUSE its the government, its bad because its bad, and therefore TIA's shouldn't exist period.

] Here is where I disagree with you 100%. This is a kind of
] typical libertarian stand: "Everyone should be allowed to do
] X,Y, and Z" or "Everyone should be protected from X, Y, and
] Z."

This isn't a libertarian stand. Its a fundamental precept of democratic government. Statues of "lady justice" have a blindfold on because we are all supposed to be on equal footing with respect to the law.

There is certainly a serious problem with differences in the sort of legal council that people can afford. I think the answer to this problem is that public interest law should be better subsidized. I actually happen to think this is very baddly needed. (A good example of why I'm not at all a libertarian.) However, I don't think that this means that the poor should be allowed to engage in actions that would otherwise be considered crimes simply because they are poor.

] This is... [ Read More (1.0k in body) ]

Rattle wrote:
] In protest of TIA John Gilmore provides Poindexter's home
] address, phone number, and aerial photographs of his house!
]
] If there is a Sainthood equivalent for technology peeps, John
] Gilmore will recieve it in his lifetime.

What the? I thought you went to a Catholic school. You should know that saints are always declared so posthumously, and usually only long after their deaths.

Dagmar wrote:
] Rattle wrote:
] ] In protest of TIA John Gilmore provides Poindexter's home
] ] address, phone number, and aerial photographs of his house!
] ]
] ] If there is a Sainthood equivalent for technology peeps,
] John
] ] Gilmore will recieve it in his lifetime.
]
] What the? I thought you went to a Catholic school. You
] should know that saints are always declared so posthumously,
] and usually only long after their deaths.

True. There have been exceptions to that rule made in the past.. I guess thats what I was thinking when I wrote that there...