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 fence.

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.

] 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.

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 is essentially a flawed notion and I can prove it. For example, later on you point out that corporations should have this same protection. Well, I guess this makes sense since they have a lot more rights than your average citizen, but interestingly enough they have to report their finances (if public) where a citizen wouldn't. [Note the "if public" here.]

This is because in the past unscrupulous corporations took advantage of investors. It's because unchecked power or authority without oversight is subject to abuse. This is the way it has always been and always will be.

Remember that Question Authority bumper sticker? That's what this is all about. How much damage has been done over the years due to secretive governments, individuals, and corporations? Those with power and authority should be closely monitored such that when they are abusing said privileges everyone knows about it.

Right now the level of control (whether self-imposed or no) of the traditional oversight mechanisms (media) is ridiculous. This is a society in peril of it's own implosion.

So yes, I said it half-seriously. If I thought it was possible to get away with I might try it, but I can pretty much guarantee that if someone does a law will get passed. And then who will be protected? OK, everyone, but do I give a -bleep- if John Doe down the street is abusing his power? Perhaps hurting his children? Maybe. A little certainly. But I care a whole lot more that Dick Cheney was meeting with the Enron folks and I sure would like to know when, where, what for, and for how long. [He's protected, but you get my point.] I want to know who Bush is meeting with and who he talks to.

I want to know what the web of power looks like among the elites.

[snip]
] 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.

No it shouldn't. It should be a law that's humanistic in design. One that protects the average person, but also avoids protecting those that essentially don't need it.

] 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.

It hasn't "become" us versus them, Tom. It always was. You are not part of the circle of people who rule that nation and you aren't ever going to become one. The rules, laws, taxes, and just about everything else is set up to favor them.

If this is not true why isn't Poindexter in jail? Why wasn't Kissinger put on trial?

This is a class society and the laws should assist in trying to equalize those classes as much as possible.

This libertarian line of thought that attempts to pretend that class doesn't exist and that we live in an equal society is inherently flawed and basically not useful for moving forward into a society that is set up as a true meritocracy.

RE: Eyeballing Total Information Awareness