Think of the cell as operating system, and engineers taking the place of traditional biologists in retooling stripped down components of cells (bio-bricks) in much the vein as in the late 70s when electrical engineers were working their way to the first personal computer by assembling circuit boards, hard drives, monitors, etc. It's not an accident that the phrase "bio-hackers" is in the conversation, as this new crowd has a lot in common with the computer engineers who were around the homebrew computer club of the '70s leading the development of the personal computer. ... What is the path from here to general fabrication? Is that creating too much power in the hands of the individual to be able to create whatever they want that is physical. (Right now they can create any software they want, pretty much, and that has risks; some people estimate up to a trillion dollars a year is lost; lost in some way due to hackers and viruses and spam and whatnot). We have been greatly empowered computationally, without much discussion in advance of whether we should or shouldn't. There's been considerably more discussion in advance about whether we should do recombinant DNA or gene therapy or genetically modified organisms.
Generally I think he's right about this. One major exception that jumps to mind is cryptography. Maybe the name Louis Freeh rings a bell? But CALEA simply permits the FBI to maintain court-approved access to digital communications and stored data. Another technical challenge called encryption then and now threatens to make court-authorized interception orders a nullity. Robust and commercially available encryption products are proliferating and no legal means has been provided to law enforcement to deal with this problem, as was done by Parliament in the United Kingdom. Terrorists have been able to exploit this huge vulnerability in our public safety matrix. Neither the Patriot Act nor any other likely-to-be-enacted statute even attempts to close this gap. Resolving this issue is critical to homeland security.
You'll find the above online. You may also remember CRISIS: In an age of explosive worldwide growth of electronic data storage and communications, many vital national interests require the effective protection of information. When used in conjunction with other approaches to information security, cryptography is a very powerful tool for protecting information. Consequently, current U.S. policy should be changed to promote and encourage the widespread use of cryptography for the protection of the information interests of individuals, businesses, government agencies, and the nation as a whole, while respecting legitimate national needs of law enforcement and intelligence for national security and foreign policy purposes to the extent consistent with good information protection. Recommendation 1: No law should bar the manufacture, sale, or use of any form of encryption within the United States.
Now back to the Edge article: We're making it easier for people to make anything. They can make good things, they can make bad things, and if we're going there, we're going there very fast, at alarming exponential rates that most people are not competent at projecting exponentials. Maybe people like Ray Kurzweil and you and me get it, but, even for us, there's not really an engineering discipline of exponential technology.
I'd like to see an assessment about the value of global productivity lost due to inefficiencies in the design of automobiles and highways/roadways. I think about this whenever a minor auto accident causes severe congestion during rush hour. Some insurance company is going to haggle over paying a few thousand dollars to repair a couple of bumpers. No one seems to care about the fact that 10,000 drivers spent an extra thirty minutes in traffic because of that nitwit with the broken bumper, even those 5,000 hours of lost work are considerably more valuable than the parts and labor it will take to fix those bumpers. Constructive Biology | Edge | 
