Crypto Advocates Favoring ... Regulation?

mpk writes: [snip!] I've eliminated the submitter's entire write-up. So far submissions have been gushing with praise or harshly critical of this article in Salon -- nothing in between. Rather than choosing one side or the other, I'll just point you to the article, say it's well worth reading, and see how the comments fall.

Comments

Government Monitoring is Good....

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't mind the government monitoring my communications. I mean, when I get in a fight with my girlfriend about me saying I would be there for dinner at 8:00 (and should thought I said 7:00), then I just contact my local NSA offical, have him play back the telephone conversation, and *poof*, problem solved!.

This is also great for other things such as listening to the phone sex you had months back and are now too broke to call again. Or perhaps e-mails that people said they "didn't receive" (pfft, yeah, right. and it didn't bounce back to me either). Have the NSA poke around in their logs and/or mailbox and verify they received it.

Ahhh, the NSA. Keepers of the free world!

Re:Government Monitoring is Good....

[decaf_dude]

If it weren't for NSA, we wouldn't have the space shuttle.

That's NASA, not NSA. But then, you must've known that. Right? Right?

I disagree entirely

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sorry, but I don't agree with many of the things that the many "visionaries" are saying in this article. They seem to be saying that the end of libertarianism is at hand, and that the government holds the key to a bright and sunny future. This is rubbish. The government is the institution which is most likely to hold the free growth of the Internet back, and let the rest of the world outpace our great nation as we enter the 21st century. Without an ever expanding net infrastructure we will be doomed to become little better than a third world nation, as others zoom past us into the future.

In today's world the true innovators and proponents of the net are the corporations, and it is their drive and vision which have turned the net from an academic's playground into the dynamic, exciting domain that it is today. Visionaries like Steve Case, one of the true heroes of the net, have allowed anyone with a PC to access the internet, not just the "elite" computer nerds of yesteryear. The growth in e-commerce has resulted in a vast body of new technologies which have increased synergy across the web, all to the betterment of those using it. The first victory of the corporations over the "ivory tower" academics jealously guarding their playground was the introduction of the IMG tag, and since then we have seen numerous other improvements which the academics never wanted. And what have the government done in all this? With their original "Appropriate Use Policy" they tried to stifle the growth of the net, and it looks like they will go for more damaging legislation in the near future. The government is not, and will never be, our ally in this struggle.

What we need is for the corporations who have created the modern internet to take a more active hand in this struggle. Since they are driven by market forces to provide what it is we, as customers, want from the internet it only makes sense for them to take a more active part in the control of net infrastructure and protocols, so that everyone can benefit from a more coherent and interactive experience. The running of the net should not be left in the hands of aging hippies with fond memories of the Grateful Dead, it should be in the hands of more proactive organizations which will make the net something even better for consumers than it is now. The government's attempts to stifle growth on the internet is a direct result of the neo-Luddite liberal propaganda which infects it at every level, and makes it unable and unwilling to act in the best interests of our nation, and by extension, ourselves.

More regulation of the net is not the answer - anything which stifles the growth of potential markets is a bad thing and must be avoided at all costs. The business world needs to be given totally free rein in the online world in order that the replacement of the old, academic paradigm with the new, consumer-driven paradigm is allowed to happen without being impeded by a confusion of committees and "requests for comments" by people who don't have a global understanding of the true issues at hand. People can never truly grasp the entire structure of the moment - it is only corporations which have this vision, and as such they are the only possible force which can make sure the internet continues progressing and expanding.

Re:I disagree entirely

[Frank Sullivan]

I disagree entirely too.

I think.

But first, clear something up for me... was this a JOKE?

__
(oO)
/||\

Re:I disagree entirely

[gilroy]

I am torn between amazement -- that this might be a carefully crafted ironic piece -- and horror -- that the poster actually believed what was said. If it's irony, then bravo! If not... well, I guess I have to assume it was meant literally and react to that. Sorry if my cluemeter is reading zero on the intent of the article.

Quoth the poster:

n today's world the true innovators and proponents of the net are the corporations, and it is their drive and vision which have turned the net from an academic's playground into the dynamic, exciting domain that it is today

The first part of that sentence is so ridiculous it can't even be analyzed. The second is more interesting. I'll concede that the Net began as "an academic's playground" (though I don't see why that should be bad, per se). Was it the "corporations" that turned it into the "dynamic, exciting domain" of today? No. It was all those poor, lamented academics -- the profs and the students -- who learned about email and found it made their lives easier and fuller, who came up with and embraced the Web to make their lives easier and fuller, who demanded that corporations and governments get online to make their lives easier and fuller. Without the "academics" pushing hard, nobody would believe the Net could yield a dollar, and thus, no business would have invested.

Let me be explicit: The Net had value long before it had corporations onboard. This is almost self-evident: Unless the corporations sniffed that money could be made, they would never have invested in the Net. But if the corporations aren't there until the money is there, where did the money come from? Those academics.

Quoth the poster:

The first victory of the corporations over the "ivory tower" academics jealously guarding their playground was the introduction of the IMG tag,

Hmmm. The Web was thought up at CERN, where one of the prevailing problems was the easy interchange across large distances of the text and graphs of nuclear theory. Yet they left out the IMG tag? Um, no. IMG was in HTML from either the very beginning or soon after -- at least as early as 1993 -- and was embraced long before there were corporations dictating standards.

Quoth the poster:

And what have the government done in all this?

Funding the research and underwriting the fiber that made the Internet possible in the first place?

Quoth the poster:

Since they are driven by market forces to provide what it is we, as customers, want from the internet it only makes sense for them to take a more active part in the control of net infrastructure and protocols, so that everyone can benefit from a more coherent and interactive experience.

This is a vision too horrifying to contemplate: a hundred or more corporations pushing standards to ensure their control, putting the dollars ahead of the data. The corporations are equipped only to give more of the same. Innovation, true innovation, changes the rules and risks invalidating the business models. They want to give us what they tell us to want, not what we want. Anything else is too random to fit on a bottom line.

Quoth the poster, in the most damning line:

The running of the net should not be left in the hands of aging hippies with fond memories of the Grateful Dead, it should be in the hands of more proactive organizations which will make the net something even better for consumers than it is now.

Firstly, I don't know any geeks who fit the description, but actually, I'd be much happier with Jerry Garcia running things than Bill Gates, so if that was meant to insult it missed the mark. But most importantly, note whom the poster believes are the key people here. "Consumers".

Not "citizens".

Not "people".

But "consumers". From the view of corporatists, people have value in direct relation to their ability to purchase. Corporations love the rich not for being rich but for being able to buy stuff. All value is economic value, to a corporation, and those other human attributes -- ethics, honor, love -- are zero-value.

This is what makes corporatism evil.... not that it strips us of our human dignity. That it denies that there is human dignity, that people matter, that citizens are more than cogs in an economic machine.

Quoth the poster (and I'm nearly done, promise):

People can never truly grasp the entire structure of the moment - it is only corporations which have this vision, and as such they are the only possible force which can make sure the internet continues progressing and expanding.

It isn't clear to me how corporations focused on the bottom line in quarterly increments can have a "big picture" but that isn't even the point. Intentionally or not the poster has exposed the key issue: Corporations act like living beings and they play on a field that is insensitive to individuals. And their only criterion of "rightness" is the ability to keep "progressing and expanding".

If that vision doesn't keep you up at night, you're not paying attention.

Re:The government is still the problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

Government and big business are not two different entities, they are two sides of the same coin. Go back in history and you will learn that the advent of big business coincided with big government so that labor could be squashed and little brown people in far off lands could be oppressed and killed if necessary, and their land resources taken from them. Corporations are creatures of the state, they are chartered and regulated by the same people who sit on their boards of directors. Get a fucking clue people.

Re:this reminds me of a Bruce Sterling quip

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all the same useless re-spin of the obvious truth.

"This just in, secure communication to someone you do not trust won't make them trustworthy."
Zimmerman, for all the importance that's heaped on his pronouncement this one time, has NEVER said that PGP is a magic wand.

The same people will argue that owning semi-automatic weapons is no defense against a tyranical government, "They'll bring bigger guns", but really, wouldn't you prefer your chances with an AK-47 rather than a slingshot?

The idea that libertarian beliefs are being "overturned" by the sudden realisation that PGP won't stop hate or lies is laughable, Salon can do better than this (the author can't, try the book mentioned at the end of the article)

Social structures and technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Salon is baiting libertarians again: this time with a geek-oriented red herring.

It's true: technology doesn't trump social structures. It's true: I can encrypt my laptop's hard drive so no one can read it; but that doesn't stop my neighbors and the police from shooting me or beating me. Social structures are what protect me (or don't protect me) from that kind of abuse.

But it's also true: technology changes the terms of the debate. This has been true since the invention of gunpowder, if not before. And the analysis of technology's impact on social structures goes back to Marx, if not before.

So now Salon comes along, points to a bunch of geeks, and accuses them of political ignorance. Hey, that's bullshit. We've known all along that PGP is not a substitute for the human right to privacy: it's a technological realization of it.

Re:Article author is biased...

[Anonymous Coward]

The author, Ellan Ullman, is a woman, by the way.

Re:The government is still the problem...

[Danse]

And people need to understand that if they support giving the government more power, that power is going to eventually be used for things that they don't support.

This is very true. :) I see all these special interest groups trying to get the government to pass laws to further their interests and I have to wonder if they've really thought about what they're asking. I think the problem is that people have grown too dependent on the government. When they want something done, the first thing they do is run to the government and demand that it do something to get whatever it is done.

Now, like the previous poster said, if something can be done, then the power to do it must rest somewhere. I'll take it a step further and say that I don't think you can even take the power away from corporations anyway. You can only keep them from using that power with the threat of greater power that can be brought to bear against them. This is why we need government. Without it, we end up with a bunch of little governments that provide us with a lot less protection. A cyberpunk future where mega-corporations serve as regional governments is not that farfetched. The real problem, as I see it, is that we don't feel we have much control over our government, and that it is more influenced by money than by sensible arguments. This will only get worse I fear. The education system in this country is in a pitiful state. If it keeps going the way it is now, it won't be much longer before the populace can't even comprehend the issues, let alone have an informed opinion on which to base their voting decisions. We already see this a lot today. Look at all the people who weigh in with their opinion on the Microsoft trial. How many of them read the trial transcripts or investigated Microsoft's history? How many even understood what the case was about? Now, realize that the same problem exists for political issues. The way the government obfuscates the issues doesn't help matters either. The whole debate about how the "surplus" should be spent was a perfect, and particularly sickening example. Without much much better education, the country will soon be completely ruled by the elite few that can afford to attend the best schools. The rest won't even be able to understand what's going on and will make their decisions based on which political group has the best commercials. If I were the Democrats, I'd get the Bud frogs and lizards on my side now.

This became obvious to me recently...

[Danse]

After reading Lawrence Lessig's book, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, it was painfully clear to me that technology alone would make the Net into what we want it to be. In fact, relying on technology alone would doom efforts to keep the Net open and free.

Like it or not, the government and corporations are the ones that will be deciding the future of the Net unless enough people take an interest in keeping it a free zone. Technology can't do it alone because technology is subject to regulation. Crypto is the perfect example. The police may not be able to determine whether you're guilty of a crime or not if you encrypt your communications, but if the government decided that you should be assumed guilty if you try to hide your communications, or if you refuse to decrypt your communications, then you're screwed either way. This is not that farfetched. Check out Britain, leading the free world in bad Net regulation.

The point is that Neil, Tim, and the rest are correct. Without the social structures to support our privacy, there is no way to guarantee it. Btw, I highly recommend Lessig's book. It's not that big, go read it. He makes a lot of sense. I plan to read it again this summer, just so I'll have more time to really think about some of the things he's saying.

Re:Why government is worse...

[crayz]

There are several ways that this could be accomplished privately. One, you could have a subscription system, where you pay a monthly charge for the privilege of using the highway. Another would be to have a card you swap at the exit and entrance. A third would be to have sensors in the road and magnetically encoded data on the underside of your car. All three of these are technically feasible, and wouldn't inconvenience drivers much.

Yeah, how does that work? What company is going to be able to buy the unbelievable amounts of land needed to build a nation highway system? Also, when the someone's house is in the way, the gov't just gives them a check and tells them to get packing. How is the corporation going to do this(you know there's gonna be some places people won't move no matter what)?

The simple fact is that there are some thing the government can do better. Give credit where credit is due.

Re:Why government is worse...

[crayz]

Actually there was Gore and Bradley, and, at one point, 12 Republicans. All but Gore and Bush(and Alan Keyes) have dropped.

BTW, you libertarians complaining about your choices should shut up. You're the ones against campaign finance reform, and then you complain when the people getting the huge checks from corporations are able to win.

I agree.

[Phil-14]

Allow me to say I agree.

There's a strong element in the left, and to a lesser extent on the right, that claims that libertarians don't care about society.

The implicit assumption that they don't really want to say they're saying is that society and the state are equivalent. To most libertarians, this is about as stupid as the Sun King's "L'etat, c'est moi."

Just as an example, look at how the author mentioned librarians; many of the libraries in the early US were founded with private donations; the institution is only as strong in the US as it is now because in the 19th century, Andrew Carnegie went around endowing large numbers of them. There are countries around with much stronger government involvement in the economy, without a library system as extensive as the US's, because it wasn't part of their society.

To me, it looks like the author just had an axe to grind, and is spinning the conference for all it's worth.

Libertarianism is a canard.

[RobotSlave]

Sigh. I can't stand it when journalists use the word "libertarian" when they write about the political composition of the high-tech community. Using the term is just plain lazy.

People whose politics are "libertarian" believe in a fairly strict lassaize-faire approach to solving social problems.

If there is any unifying thread in the political thinking of the high-tech community, then it is a tendency to believe that technologically engineered solutions to social problems should be attempted before or in place of socially engineered solutions.

These two positions are vastly different, but journalists don't seem to be able to make the distinction, probably because no-one has coined a convenient "ism" for the latter-- let me suggest "technologism", "anti-luddism," or the perversely confusing "mechanism."

As a result, discussion of the conference, like discussion of so many other events that conflate the political with the technical, is being derailed into an utterly irrelevant poli-sci wonk session focused on libertarianism.

My apologies to the libertarians out there-- I don't mean to disparage anyone's political beliefs, I'm just angry that the culturally loaded term "libertarian" is so often allowed to distract attention from the issues at hand.

It's either classic satire or...

[diaphanous]

a marketdroid writing. No one else would be brain-dead enough to use the terms "synergy", "proactive", "consumer-driven", and "paradigm" without scare quotes around them to indicate facetiousness. And anyone else would have to be tripping on a couple grams of Something Scary to be so deluded as to call Steve Case a visionary.

Re:Well done, Michael

[Frank Sullivan]

I beg to differ. I, for one, wrote a submission that neither praised nor bashed the article, just saying it was interesting. And, just before i came back and looked, i was grumbling to a colleague that the story (which i submitted almost six hours ago) was probably being spiked by the /. staff due to political incorrectness. It won't be the first time that's happened.

__
(oO)
/||\

Re:Why would this be a joke?

[Frank Sullivan]

I really wasn't sure if it was a joke or not. It's the sort of dark humor some people might think is funny.

Here's what i disagree with... the idea that corporations have any sort of "broad vision" (i think that was your term) at all! Corporations are even more narrowminded and senseless than governments! Most businesses are incapable of even making decisions to protect their own long-term health, much less the long-term health of society. One need look no further than Microsoft to see what happens when a corporation gets to do what it wants... the corporation will deliberately undermine growth and innovation in the industry to its own advantage.

Not that i think governments are much better than corporations, but they're a LITTLE better. There is an outside chance that they'll put public service first, at least. There is no such chance with a corporation. In fact, putting public interest ahead of profitability could be grounds for a shareholder lawsuit.

Here's a nice example for you... the other day, my six-year-old son hit a web site listed in a book he read. He played for a while, then asked for my help filling out a form. It turned out they were asking for his name, address, email, etc, and offering a chance at $5000 for signing up. And the information was *required* in order to play their cool kid-oriented games.

Mr AC, would you please care to explain how bribing my child to give up sensitive personal information to strangers counts as a wonderous technological innovation?

__
(oO)
/||\

Re:Governments and corporations

[isaac]

Boy, I must have missed that memo. Let's see do corportations:

Take taxes from you?

Like the Microsoft Tax?

Start wars?

You mean like Hearst, and the Spanish-American War?

Engage in gross acts of waste?

You mean like logging the Amazon rainforests?

And these aren't the only examples, by any means. You sound awfully naive about corporate power.

-Isaac

Re:Go Read Hayek or David Friedman already

[Luyseyal]

which is nice until the government organised collection of certain firearms from citizens awhile back which resulted in... big surprise, a crime spree.

i wish i had a link to the article i read about it. i wanna say it was a BBC blurb, but i'm not sure.

Re: Would you like to know more?

[Luyseyal]

god, that's the funniest thing i've read all day. i just love starship troopers. :)

-l

Re:Go Read Hayek or David Friedman already

[Scott McGuire]

I would guess he meant David Friedman.

At some point, the state must intercede in order to protect the powerless from the powerful

There are different kinds of power and the kind of power affects what means you are justified in using to counter it. On the mild end there's "You cheat, I won't play with you anymore." on the extreme end "Stop or I'll shoot.". Laws are backed by guns (and clubs, and prisons , ...) so they fall at the extreme end. So, to me, government intervention is justified when violence would be justified. The set of laws that seem justified to me by that criterion make me a free market libertarian.

Re:Go Read Hayek or David Friedman already

[Scott McGuire]

since I certainly have a property interest in my privacy

I don't buy this. Information about you is not the same as your information. Suppose you stand in front of me on line at a store and I see what you buy. Do you have the right to prevent me from doing what I want with this knowledge? Would you say that you have a property interest in the knowledge in my head?

There goes the neighborhood

[the_doctor]

Maybe I'm just an anarchist at heart, but something about this call for external regulation be it by the government or any other exclusive group, scares me. It smacks of the early days of radio and the formation of the FCC.

Radio and the Internet trace their origins back to their original "invention" and use as media for the military. Radio and the Internet both grew into playgrounds for the savvy individuals as hardware and know-how became more accessible. Radio and the Internet both began to attract a larger audience as hardware became cheaper and know-how became less integral to the end user experience. Radio and Internet became the focal point for social concerns over decency. In radio's case this took the form of the "7 words". The Internet had its Communications Decency Act.

Soon after widespread use of radio began, the FCC was formed to regulate who had the power to transmit. Soon, only the privileged few who could afford government license had the right to transmit to the general public. (True HAM radio and CB are the exception, but neither reach the majority of radio listeners.)

The Internet has yet to evolve to the point where government license is necessary to provide content over it, but it is the next step in its development. Allowing the government any stake in the Internet is too much as it gets their foot in the door. Once they can enforce social contracts on the Internet, who's to say what we will need them to enforce next?

The origins and paths of both the Internet and radio are strikingly similar. If we (the Internet community in general) aren't careful, the destination could be the same as well.

Be seeing you.
JG

Re:There goes the neighborhood

[Bob Uhl]

The mechanism which should have been instituted was the same as was used for the empty lands in America's West: first to transmit into an area has broadcast rights to it. Thus anyone else is a trespasser.

Then standard property rights would go into effect.

I would imagine that some rule such as `must broadcast continually from a solid radio emplacement for 6 months, during which time no interference may be attempted' would have been put in place to cut down on abuse. A proper function of government, and it would have never lead to the current regulatory regime in which no-one owns the airwaves.

Re:There goes the neighborhood

[timster]

Evening. I have a technical problem with "neither HAM nor CB reach the majority of radio listeners". It is quite possible for anyone to get a receiver for either of those bands. The fact that most people have neither is an example of conscious choice, not government intervention. Thank you.

Re:There goes the neighborhood

[briancarnell]

Just to emphasize what you said. Everybody's bitching about Cybersitter, etc., but only the government has the power to *mandate* Cybersitter crap.

It was the wonderful government, after all, that mandated the V-chip for television sets. How long before some savvy pol picks up and runs with the idea of a V-chip for all computers sold in the U.S.?

Re:There goes the neighborhood

[crazyfarmer254]

Radio Regulation came into existence shortly after (and because of) the Titantic Disaster. After radio had been abused by an individual for personal profit (funny Marconi is remembered as the Father of Radio, what will Bill be remembered as?)

Radio Regulation was needed to save life and property.

This all took place when spark was king and a Morse code transmission was very Inefficient ( i.e. using a T1 to send at 1200 Baud )
There are some definite parallels between radio and the Internet, the question is when is the Internet going to have it's Titantic event? But that is a different topic.

73 OM .... .. .... ..

Re:There goes the neighborhood

[gilroy]

Quoth the poster:

The mechanism which should have been instituted was the same as was used for the empty lands in America's West: first to transmit into an area has broadcast rights to it. Thus anyone else is a trespasser. Then standard property rights would go into effect.

Maybe. I'm not sure the assumption here -- that the mechanism used in the West actually produced the most social good -- is true. I do concede that it would have made bandwidth more or less exactly like physical property, so at least we would know where the law stood. And for radio and TV, I can imagine being persuaded that bandwidth should be treated as physical property, since the same scarcity is involved.

But applying that to the 'Net: Would cybersquatting be OK, then? Real-world squatting certainly didn't help open up the West -- it can be argued that speculation delayed settlement considerably.

Re:There goes the neighborhood

[gilroy]

Quoth the poster:

Soon after widespread use of radio began, the FCC was formed to regulate who had the power to transmit

Um, the physical mechanism of radio generation -- especially in early days -- forced some means of allocating bandwidth (a term, I remind everyone, which originated in radio). Let's say I have a 100 kW transmitter operating at 102.7 MHz, and you, too, have such a transmitter, and we decide to broadcast at the same time. What results? An open market, wherein we present our respective positions/products/whatever and somehow the "better" one wins out, leading to a happy, socially-maximized situation?

No. What happens is that we effectively jam each other and no one gets any clear idea what either of us are saying/selling/whatever. And so everyone loses: you, me, and the society as a whole.

Limitations in radio and TV technology make, IMHO, some regulation necessary and desirable. You can't let everyone broadcast, because physical bandwidth really is a scarce and rare commodity. The Internet, on the other hand, allows universal publication -- not "broadcasting", since transfers are point-to-point, not one-to-many -- and anyone can put up their pages without impacting anyone else's.

That's one reason why the Net is a new force for human freedom, at least potentially. It's the first information medium that is intrinsically and by design a universal transmitter.

Re:Still about protecting rights.

[hobbit]

Strange that you should draw an analogy about junkies and pushers in the same breath as talking about how trade is essentially 'voluntary economic transactions'. Somewhat weakens your argument, no? Or do you think that pushers are free trade heroes?

Hamish

READ THE ARTICLE "entirely"

[Nemesys]

They seem to be saying that the end of libertarianism is at hand, and that the government holds the key to a bright and sunny future. [etc etc etc]

No they aren't. Read the article.

Re:Not much of a change

[locust]

I'm not against govt or business, but I don't like that a small group of people (who are running the show) being able to threaten and bully others to get what they want.

You hit the nail right on the head. Corporations and governments are all made up of people. Now assuming that most of these people aren't evil in and of themselves, I can see two reasons for the bullying (I'm going to take a few liberties with the word bullying) going on. One: the persons giving the orders, do not/will not feel its effects. Two: the people doing the bullying, who most likely would feel its effects were they at the receiving end, by acting on behalf of the group feel excused for thier actions (the group is doing it, not me).

So now lets take some examples...

In the first case I'm sure that if one started to post the data shadows of insurance industry execs/people or politicians in a number of very public places for all to view, in order get us all some decent data privacy. Wait until someone steals the identity of a politician.

The second case is that of the coders working on something like cyberpatrol. I'd be willing to bet there's at least one person over there writing code who reads /. and has been watching them get dumped on (deservedly). But that person works for the corporation, so like most of us they've checked thier morals at the door, when they clock in. This means, its not realy them, its cyberpatrol. How many people here will admit to working for MS? Do you those of you who work for MS just filter all MS stories so you don't see them? By all accounts there are a hell of a lot of really bright people @MS... So the SW should be better than it is. But its hard to stand up and say, no this shouldn't ship, or we shouldn't do this when your dinner depends on it, or when the company is counting on you.

So you disconnect, you act on behalf of the company, rather than asking what are the consequences of this? Should I do this?

The bottom line, corps/govs. are made up of peole. And most of the people don't feel empowered to break step. Theres a psych experiment where if there are 9 control people, and a test subject and those 9 say 2+2 =5 the subject will usually say 5 as well despite what they know to be true!

-- locust

strange

[maskatron]

a strange article. like others have said, the author clearly has an agenda here, and misrepresents libertarian ideals somewhat. remember, it is about freewill. the ability to choose, not what you should choose. big companies using the net to sell their warez doesn't mean you can't use it for your own pruposes.

oh well. i was pleasantly suprised with the comments in this thread...not the usual /. banter.

He means David Friedman

[GlenRaphael]

Do you mean David Friedman or Milton Friedman?

Presumably he means David Friedman, son of Milton and author of the classic The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism.

If you haven't heard of him yet, you've missed a lot. David Friedman is the foremost thoughtful advocate for anarchocapitalism. His home page refers to a lot of good stuff he has written. Here's a limited index of ideas.

Re:He means David Friedman

[cian]

Moscow is effectively an anarcho-capatalist system. As is the drug world.

Does mr Friedman have any evidence to back his views?

Cian

Evidence

[GlenRaphael]

Moscow is effectively an anarcho-capatalist system. As is the drug world.

Does mr Friedman have any evidence to back his views?

Those are both pretty poor examples due to the amount of government involvement. But his historical examples and arguments are intriguing. Read the website and his book. If you're specifically interested in private law enforcement, try these two articles:
Making Sense of English Law Enforcement in the Eighteenth Century
Private Creation and Enforcement of Law -- A Historical Case.
(Medieval Iceland as described in the Sagas - the article was published in the Journal of Legal Studies).

There are a lot of other relevant published articles on his website, especially the academic publications page and the libertarian writings page.

Re:Still about protecting rights...

[MAXOMENOS]

The GOVERNMENT has broken treaties with the Indians over mineral and oil rights, has broken up fair protests (Seattle), and arrested and detained citizens without due process.

At whose behest did the government do this? Here's a hint: none of these were on a ballot anywhere.

Re:Still about protecting rights...

[MAXOMENOS]

Just as a note -- Rob, something's wrong with the Slashdot code. My original response got cut short.

The GOVERNMENT has broken treaties with the Indians over mineral and oil rights, has broken up fair protests (Seattle), and arrested and detained citizens without due process.

On whose behest did the government do this? Yours? Mine? Was this ever voted upon? Who called the shots here?

The GOVERNMENT does not want me to buy airline tickets with cash, limits the amount of cash I can legally send using wire services and is opposed to encryption of my personal files on my computer all in the name of public safety, (and requires privately owned companies to comply with these rules). How does me whipping out a wad of Ben Franklins to pay for a plane trip to Philadelphia threaten national security?

Corporations have the right to collect information about anybody they want to, and sell it to anyone they want to, unless you, personally, tell them otherwise. What's to prevent them from selling their information to the FBI? The CIA? The BATF? You'll note also that there's no provision in the Constitution preventing corporations from invading your privacy in this manner.

The GOVERNMENT has broad search and seizure rules without need for warrant, has the right to track all firearm purchases and trips outside of our shores, has the right to mandate new taxes (even though it is forbidden by the Constitution), and has the right to fight undeclared wars against foreign powers (even though that is against the Constitution as well).

Granted, these are all gross violations of our Constitutional rights. OTOH, who benefitted from those wars? Was the war in the Balkans really about Monica?

Thanks partially to computers, partially to the end of the Cold War, and partially to the enormous amount of money corporations presently have, corporate America has almost as much power, if not more, than the Federal Government. And whatever power they don't have, they can pay a lobbyist to get for them. Who are these companies beholden to...you? me? Not unless we're shareholders with a significant amount of stock. Even the media do what the Corporate world tells it to.

So what are you going to do...blame the government for everything, or start looking at who's telling the government what to do?

Re:Still about protecting rights.

[MAXOMENOS]

Something else I might point out...corporations are treated as artificial persons under the law. But corporations are not the same as people.

When you commit a felony, you go to prison for a LONG time, and you usually lose certain rights. (You can't own a firearm, you can't vote, &c). In many states, if you commit three felonies, you're put in jail for life. But when a corporation such as Exxon commits a felony (by violating environmental protection or racketeering laws, for example), then the penalty is a fine. Not a loss of any rights; not government oversight; in fact no substansive loss of freedom whatsoever. Just a fine. Corporations don't have to register themselves as conviced felons; they don't serve jail time; they don't undergo any kind of death penalty, unless they've committed gross abuses against other corporations, or unless the damage they did was so eggregious as to bankrupt them from the litigation. They get a fine; and usually that fine is a slap on the wrist.

Let me put forth this hypothesis: corporations are fundamentally different from people, and there should be treated fundamentally differently. This means that corporations are not necessarily guaranteed the same rights as individuals. Discuss. :)

Still about protecting rights.

[MAXOMENOS]

For a second, just reading the blurb on Slashdot, I thought that some crypto-advocates were talking about letting the government regulate Internet and place restrictions on cryptography. Fortunately I was quite wrong :).

It looks like the author of this Salon article is disappointed because a number of major Cryptography/Cypherpunk figures ... Neal Stephenson, Phil Zimmerman, Whitfield Diffie ... have started to advocate some very traditionally leftist activities (such as organizing unions!) and are walking away, slowly, from Libertarian ideals.

Good for them.

In case anyone's not been paying attention, right now our rights as coders and geeks are under attack...by corporations. It's not the FBI that's collecting information about misfits in high school, it's Pinkertons. It's not the Congress that's censoring web sites, it's Cybersitter. It's not the NSA that's stepping on software development, it's corporations like the MPAA, Microsoft, ad infinitum.

In the past, protecting ourselves with encryption and security was enough, because the government could only go so far. But now, corporations have powers the government never had. We need to adapt to the change in circumstances in order to protect our rights. If this means abandoning the sacred cow of Libertarianism, so be it. Stephenson, Zimmerman and Diffie are right on with this one.

Re:Still about protecting rights.

[Shadow Knight]

MPAA ad nauseum are only protecting what the government declares their rights to be.

The government declared that because the MPAA paid them to. That's not even secret! It's called "Special interest groups." Government (in the US) is not inherently evil. It only reflects the interests of the group shoving the most money at it at the moment. If you genuinely think the US government is out to get you, I suggest you move somewhere else (like a mental institution). You're right, the corps only have power because they have more money. Well... how the hell else do you measure power in this world?! If you have money, you can buy weapons, so military might is directly connected to money... hmm... I guess more money is what determines it! Gee! Thanks for proving my point! Do you honestly believe that the government is more likely to have you killed than a corporation? I personally know some people who have been threatened by corporations and their mafia ties, but I don't personally know anyone who has been threatened with death by the government. And if you think that corporations get their money purely through "voluntary economic transactions" you're stupider than I could have imagined. Thanks to corporate special interest groups, the government gives corporations vast amounts of our tax money. Also, how voluntary is it when my choice is "buy food from corporations or starve to death"? "Buy a car or not work"? Lemme tell you something: the only money I'm happy about giving out of my pocket is taxes. At least that I know is buying me more than my money's worth. When I walk the street and don't worry about being shot because of the cops on the corner, I get my money's worth. When I go to the public library and read a million good books, I know I get my money's worth. When I study here in my public university, I know I'm getting my tax money good worth. When I buy a POS bag of chips from Frito-Lay, on the other hand, I'm being ripped off. That's all I have to say for now, I'm getting to angry.

Supreme Lord High Commander of the Interstellar Task Force for the Eradication of Stupidity

Re:Still about protecting rights.

[Arandir]

"It's not the FBI that's collecting information about misfits in high school, it's Pinkertons. It's not the Congress that's censoring web sites, it's Cybersitter. It's not the NSA that's stepping on software development, it's corporations like the MPAA, Microsoft, ad infinitum."

Pinkertons is doing the collecting at the behest of school boards (aka government). Cybersitter is not censoring because I still have 100% access to the information. MPAA ad nauseum are only protecting what the government declares their rights to be.

The only power corporations have, if you insist upon calling it power, is that they have more money than the average dude. And where do they get this money? From taxation? Tariffs? Of course not! They get it from voluntary economic transactions.

Re:Still about protecting rights.

[Arandir]

"...because the MPAA paid them to...the government gives corporations vast amounts of our tax moneyDo you honestly believe that the government is more likely to have you killed than a corporation?

Well of course! What corporation could possibly hold a candle to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Soviet Union?

"em>how voluntary is it when my choice is "buy food from corporations or starve to death"?"

You're absolutely right! We have no choice in the country as to where we buy our food. Gee, let's have the government nationalize all food production and distribution. Yeah, it will get rid of all the private and coop grocers and decimate the five-acre farmer, but that's a small price to pay for the joy of seeing Safeway eliminated.

"When I buy a POS bag of chips from Frito-Lay, on the other hand, I'm being ripped off."

You've really gone over the deep end on this one. The fact of the matter is that you purchased those chips willingly and voluntarily. If you are dissatisfied with their quality, you never have to buy another bag of Frito-Lays ever again. There are dozens of other potato chip choices left open to you.

In your zeal against drug use (this is an analogy, in case you miss it) you advocate harsh and extreme sanctions against the junky, but completely ignore the pusher. If the armies, police and courts are being auctioned off to the highest bidder, why the hell are you excusing the auctioneer from any wrongdoing?

Re:Still about protecting rights.

[Rayooz]

I was at the conference, and spoke to the woman who received the award on behalf of librarians. Some libraries may be installing censoring software, but the librarians certainly don't like it, and they fight tooth & nail against it.

Re:Still about protecting rights.

[cian]

Well of course! What corporation could possibly hold a candle to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Soviet Union?

Nestle, the United Fruit Company, Unilever, Shell...

A lot of large corporations trade happily with regemes that are far worse than either of those two (Burma comes to mind), and actively help put down dissent (money, lobbying the US government, etc). What do you think the ethnic cleansing of East Timor was about?

It's no coincident that corporatism, fascism and communism came about at roughly the same point in time. They share a similar mind set (centralised power, conformism, uniformity). Fascist Germany was, ignoring the nutty philosophy, an attempt to create a corporation in the political and social sphere. Large corporations loved it. They traded with it, jeez Coke took active advantage of the war to build Coke Europe into an unassailable position (they were granted a virtual monopoly, and created Fanta to take advantage of it).

Re:Still about protecting rights.

[El Volio]

Interesting... what might serve as the basis for such a sysadmin union? SAGE? Or something else?

As has been repeatedly pointed out, while this is probably a good idea, and definitely one that I personally support, organizing techies would be, to steal a phrase from Heinlein, like herding cats.

Re:Still about protecting rights.

[ronfar]

Note also the Pinkerton's are planning to work for the school system, a government body.

The most frightening thing going on right now is the joining together of big evil corporations and big, evil government.

You know, blind, unswerving obedience to the United States government no matter what it does didn't used to be a left wing thing.... I think it is a relatively new development. To many anti-government leftists got co-opted by the Man, I guess I'd have to say.

Re:Still about protecting rights.

[briancarnell]

Exactly. One of the problems here is that most people have no choice but to send their kids the the public school nearest which they live which feeds them with all sorts of propaganda, whether it be WAVE-type nonsense or DARE.

WAVE exists precisely because state-run schools in America love this sort of crap (the state-run schools near me suspend kids for wearing Korn t-shirts; WAVE is their wet dream).

Re:Still about protecting rights.

[briancarnell]

"Some libraries may be installing censoring software, but the librarians certainly don't like it, and they fight tooth & nail against it."

Which is precisely the problem with public institutions -- the libraries that are public have no choice. If enough people vote for it and the courts uphold it, there's your censorship.

Re:Still about protecting rights.

[briancarnell]

Cybersitter doesn't censor *anything* unless a *government* agency or affiliate decides to install it (such as all those wonderful public libraries the Salon article raved about).

Re:Still about protecting rights.

[period3]

What I find interesting, is that the people in favor of more laws are at the top of the slashdot comments. i also find interesting that the Salon article calls anybody with a different perspective "immature". Older? Wiser? Or just more conservative? conservative/right wing != old and wise left wing/anarchist != immature

Re:Still about protecting rights.

[EatAtJoes]

So corporations don't have rights? Even though a corporation is just a group of people?

Your tone is as though this is a rhetorical question. But the answer is not assured, nor are its implications self-evident.

Corporations have great value to their prinicipals, by sheilding them from individual liability for the corporation's actions. Corporations can (and do) commit felonies but their principals never go to jail.

So exactly why should a corporation itself have rights? Rights pertain to a liberal notion that human beings have inalienable rights. A corporation is a thing, a sheild, an entity. It shouldn't have any more rights than my car.

Having said that, corporations do have rights. Shows you the kind of influence corporate interests have had and continue to have over the legislative process...

Re:Still about protecting rights.

[LazyBoy]

In case anyone's not been paying attention, right now our rights as coders and geeks are under attack...by corporations. It's not the FBI that's collecting information about misfits in high school, it's Pinkertons. It's not the Congress that's censoring web sites, it's Cybersitter. It's not the NSA that's stepping on software development, it's corporations like the MPAA, Microsoft, ad infinitum.

Yeah, but the corporations (MPAA) are passing laws with the help of the government.

Re:Still about protecting rights.

[herb__kornfeld]

Right, we'll dismantle the public school system and everyone will go to private schools, which I don't think are noted for their tolerance of Korn t-shirts and other acts of rebellious behavior.

Re:this reminds me of a Bruce Sterling quip

[Duke of URL]

Hey, I agree with you about gov't's attempts to restrict our freedoms and invade our privacy. They need to back off. I was just saying that I think in the future they will back off more. Whether more is enough or not..

I guess I'm just trying to be optimistic about the future. The more we clamor for better encryption and privacy freedoms/protections the better off we'll be.

Re:this reminds me of a Bruce Sterling quip

[Duke of URL]

Or c.) mandate a back door be installed in every legal product.

I'm glad we have encryption software that is open source. I would never completely trust closed source encryption to protect my privacy 100%.

With the source we can look for back doors ourselves.

I guess then, we should still really be worried about is how good are the mathematical algorithms used to do the actual encryption. Back doors aren't needed if AgencyX already knows how to "make worthless" encrypted data used by some flawed algorithm.

Re:this reminds me of a Bruce Sterling quip

[Duke of URL]

Hardware Crypto Support in 2.7 http://slashdot.org/article.pl? sid=00/04/13/0520228

Why did I post that link? Well I think that the computer related communications are going to be encrypted more often in the near future. It won't be inconvienent anymore (in the future). No fiddling with PGP keys or whatever - once it reaches a certian point and evolves on a human factor level as well.

When it gets to the point that encryption is just a standard part of the OS, and most all your communications are encrypted, the law-enforcement agencies are going to either have to:
a.) spend alot more money on encryption breaking techniques
b.) rely alot more on your cohorts to ratt out on you.

Will the governments attempt to thwart encryption adoption in new more aggresive ways? I don't think so. And with certain RSA patents going south for the winter come this September, it only gets easier to spread encryption use even more as US companies/individuals are freed-up in certain respects to compete or offer freely encryption software.

Just because its easy for big governments to intercept and read our private communications, it doesn't make it right.

Re:Good reporting format

[mpk]

Maybe, but as the original submitter I'd prefer that they cut my identity completely if they aren't using any words I wrote.. especially if they want to editorialise with words like "gushing praise" and "harshly critical". I don't think my submission was either of these things, and it's irritating to see my name attached to that.

If you aren't going to use any of the words I say, snip my identity. Especially if you're going to make snide comments about the submission - that just isn't fair unless you provide the evidence for people to make their minds up with.

Re:Governments and corporations

[binarybits]

OK, but the problem is that most people who fight "multinational corporations" do it by trying to enact new laws to stop corporations from misusing the ones that are already on the books. What they don't seem to understand is that the only way we'll ever reclaim control of our government is when it's small enough that it doesn't have so many favors to hand out to said corporations.

As long as we have a 2 trillion dollar budget and as long as federal buearocrats regulate every aspect of our lives, corporations will pour money into getting their share. There's simply no way to stop it.

Think of government as a loaded gun sitting in the middle of the room, with all of us around the edges. Whoever gets to it first gets to use it on his opponents. Therefore, getting control is a matter of life or death, especially for big corporations, because they know if they don't get to it, either their competitors or their enemies will get ahold of that gun and use it on them. It's therefore not surprising that they work so hard to get control of the government.

Every interest group in the capital is trying to get control of that coercive apparatus. And any corporation that chooses to stay out of the political arena runs the risk that its competitors will get the government to screw them over. Look at Microsoft. Do you think they would have been subject to antitrust charges if Gates had given Clinton a few million bucks in 1992 and 1996? Netscape and Sun lobbied the DOJ and their home Senators to go after Microsoft, and the clear lesson there is that you have to have a presence at the capital.

Note that it doesn't even matter whether Microsoft or Netscape is in the right in this case. The fact is that it was in each of their self-interest to use the power of government to screw the other over. Netscape got their first, and so whether they were right or not, doing so gave them a tactical advantage in the marketplace.

The solution isn't to add more laws and hope they succeed where previous laws have failed. The solution is to get rid of the gun that everyone's fighting over. Only when the big corporations have nothing to gain or lose by staying out of the political arena will they do so.

Incidentally, only a Libertarian will give you a wholesale downsizing of government. Don't waste your vote this November. Vote Libertarian.

Why government is worse...

[binarybits]

1. The government is a hell of a lot bigger than any corporation. Microsoft has a market capitalization in the hundreds of billions of dollars. The federal government takes in trillions of dollars *annually.* If it were a corporation, its market cap would be in excess of 20 trillion dollar, or about 100 times that of the largest companies.

2. Since corporations have to make a profit, they have to at least do something useful for the people who give them money. We may not like Microsoft, but Windows is undoubtedly better than it was in 1990. Government, on the other hand, has practically no direct obligations to taxpayers. As voters, we are typically given two nearly identical choices for our leaders, and then we have to put up with his crap for another 4 years.

3. Since corporations have to turn a profit, they are at least efficient. There is a reason that FedEx and UPS are able to compete with the Postal Service despite the USPS having a monopoly in first class mail.

4. Finally, the government has the power to tax, and the power to tax is the power to destroy. Microsoft may charge you a small "tax" for Windows-- which only applies if you buy a name-brand x86 PC-- but this is dwarfed by the tens of thousands of dollars we each pay to the government.

5. The government has a military. Whenever someone tells me that government acts for the public interest, I look at our foreign policy. Our government has killed more civilians in recent years than any of the petty thugs we've gone to war with. Any damage sweatshops or capital flight may do to a country pale in comparison to the complete devastation of an economy that occurs when the US goes to war. The people of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Cuba, Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, and North Korea would almost certainly choose to be exploited by Nike over the wholesale destruction they recieved at the hands of our government.

6. Most importantly, most of the obnoxious things corporations have done were done using the power of the state. So reducing the government to its constitutional limits would end most corporate excesses along with it.

Re:Why government is worse...

[binarybits]

Most of this isn't worth responding to, but I can't let a couple of these go unchallenged:

If my representatives don't do what I want, I don't vote for them.

I don't like what Clinton's doing. Who do you propose I vote for, Bush? What is he going to do differently?

More importantly, the vast majority of the decisions in government are made by unelected burocrats. Do you think they give a rip whether the guy at the top is a Republican or a Democrat? And as a consumer, I get a "vote" for the products I like and dislike every time I walk into a store. But in government, I get a couple of votes every 2 years. That's it. You tell me which is more accountable to the people.

Have you ever actually read the Declaration of Independence? Have you ever even seen a copy of the Constitution?

What the hell does that have to do with anything? The constitution and declaration of independence say nothing about the concept of taxation (beyond giving the federal government to lay and collect taxes in the 16th amendment, which has nothing to do with whether taxation can be destructive.)

I think you must not have. Have you ever voted? Ever? If not, STOP FUCKING COMPLAINING. The government answers directly to the voters.

I've voted every year since I turned 18, and not one of the people I've voted for has ever won. You want to tell me the government is reflecting my interests?

It is the power to protect and grow, not the power to destroy. And paying taxes is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A CITIZEN!

If I fail to pay my taxes, I will get thrown in jail. That's coercion. I never consented to the authority of the government, and I see no reason why I am bound to obey their commands.

As for taxation being used only for good, tell that to the millions of non-violent drug users who are spending their lives in prison. Tell that to the millions of desperately poor Mexican immigrants who get turned away at our border when all they want to do is find a better way of life. Tell that to all the people in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, and dozens of other countries who have dies as a result of the callous incompetence of US politicians. Tell that to the millions of inner-city kids who are forced to go to failing inner-city schools where all they learn is drug use and crime.

I could go on all day. If you honestly think that the government doesn't do anything bad with the tax dollars it takes from us, then you have your head so far up your ass that I'm never going to convince you of anything.

Those people aren't paying taxes to the government of the US, so they don't get their interest served!

Oh I see, so they aren't US citizens, and so therefore there's nothing wrong with killing them by the truckload! Hell, let's just nuke any country that doesn't start sending us tribute. Does the concept of human rights mean anything to you? Has it occured to you that people are more than just revenue-generators for the government?

The military of the US exists to defend the lawful, taxpaying citizens of the US.

Gee, I sure am glad Clinton defended me from those bloodthirsty serbs! Too bad they are a continent away, and wouldn't pose a threat to the US even if that was their sole goal in life. How exactly were they a threat?

However, there certainly exist multi-national corporations with military might, too, and they don't have any such responsibilty.

Uh huh. Please tell me which corporations have their own armies.

If you reduce the power of the government, you reduce it's ability to restrain the corporate might. All the things the corps have done through government pale in comparison to what they'd do without government.

Uh huh. Please give me an example of something bad that corporations would do under lassez-faire capitalism that they can't do now.

Re:Why government is worse...

[binarybits]

But whereas as corporation spends its money on itself, not its customers if at all possible, the government is supposed to spend the money it gets on the people who pay taxes.

That's a nice theory, but it bears no relationship to the way things actually work. Government spends its money buying votes to get politicians reelected. If you think that corporations are less wasteful than government, I suggest you pay better attention to what the government is actually doing.

Products such as tobacco, alcohol, and Furbies are of dubious usefulness, and yet they sell well.

That's an arrogant statement. Usefullness *is* in the eye of the beholder, so who are you to say that these things are not useful. The point is that the things corporations make are things that their customers voluntarily choose to buy, while things governments make are things that politicians think will get them re-elected. Who is going to benefit more, the consumer of the taxpayer?

Efficiency is not necessarily good. It is more 'efficient' to use third world sweat shops to produce goods since these countries have fewer laws protecting workers from exploitation.

I love it when wealthy Westerners self-righteously denounce "exploitation" of the third world. This indicates not just a lack of understanding of economics, but a complete lack of respect for the people who work in those sweatshops.

People choose to work in "sweatshops" because they don't have a better choice. If you want to provide better jobs, more power to you, but don't complain about the companies that are actually out there improving the lot of these people. The fact that *you* consider them substandard wages doesn't give you the right to take those jobs away.

The interstate freeway system--built with your tax dollars--has had a tremendous positive impact on economic growth. It is unlikely that this system could have been built by private industry, since the only direct means of getting a profit is through toll booths, which run counter to the idea of a freeway.

There are several ways that this could be accomplished privately. One, you could have a subscription system, where you pay a monthly charge for the privilege of using the highway. Another would be to have a card you swap at the exit and entrance. A third would be to have sensors in the road and magnetically encoded data on the underside of your car. All three of these are technically feasible, and wouldn't inconvenience drivers much.

If a corporation needed to use physical force to protect its interests, believe me, it would.

That's why we need the government: to make sure they don't. But the government-- which already has a military-- is nonetheless a bigger threat than the corporations that might someday get one.

Pollution controls, seat belts, minimum wages, etc. are all a result of the government reigning in corporate excesses.

Pollution control is a perfectly legitimate action of the government, since pollution is a trespass on those around you, and so the government protects us from that trespass. Seat belts were on some cars before they were required, and would have been added as customers demanded them. What possible reason would a corporation have to *not* put a $10 seat belt in a car?

Minimum wages hurt the poorest members of society by making it harder for them to find employment. This hurts them even more in the long run because the best way to raise your income is on-the-job training. In short, minimum wages do more damage to the poor than practically any other law on the books.

The point is that we need the government to protect us from everyone's "excesses"-- corporate or otherwise. My problem is that we have government laws specifically targeted at corporations, when if fact corporations have no more power than any other type of organization. Without the power of the government, corporations are no threat to anyone.

Re:Why government is worse...

[binarybits]

Simple, you secure the rights to buy all of the land you'll need before you build anything. And if someone won't sell, you plan a new route. You make sure that you have the rights to the entire route before you start building anything, so that you don't have to worry about someone holding out at the last minute.

Besides, what right does the government have to kick people out of their homes just because they want to build a road there? I don't think this is an argument in favor of government. It's a *good* thing that corporations can't do this. Government shouldn't do this either.

Historical precedent is also against you. The early railroad industry was built almost entirely with private money. The later Westward expansion was done on land provided by the government, but the more successful railroads in the east made it without much government help. I see no reason why roads couldn't be run the same way.

Re:Why government is worse...

[binarybits]

how about cocaine? Or LSD?

As much as you or I might dislike these products and choose not to use them ourselves, there are people who choose to consume them and believe they benefit from them. I don't believe it's right to take that choice away from them. And besides, even if we wanted to do so, we couldn't, as the drug war has clearly demonstrated.

Or pre-teen prostitutes?

This isn't really a "product. Pre-teen prostitution should be illegal for the protection of the preteen. It has nothing to do with corporations.

And I don't think it's true that pre-teen prostitutes are bad for their customers. *If* the prostitute is an adult, then I don't think that should be a crime. And if the prostitute is a child, then it should be illegal, but not to protect the customer.

As far as politicians go, if a politician does what is necessary to get re-elected, are not the voters getting what they 'paid' for?

I'm not. I never voted for any of the bozos in Washington right now. If the laws only applied to those that voted for the winning candidate, then I'd agree, but they apply to everyone. It is the lack of choice on the part of the taxpayer that makes the difference.

But I have seen where an entire community was kicked off its land with no compensation, their homes burnt to the ground, because of a corporation.

Whether it was done "because of a corporation" or not, the point remains that the actual kicking off was done by the local government. (or at least it chose to look the other way when it could have stopped it) Does that absolve the corporation? Absolutely not. But the root of the problem is still the government. The governments in other countries are weak and are therefore used to do nasty things to their citizens.

So while the corporation isn't blameless, this can only happen if the government lets it happen. And usually the government does all the dirty work for the corporation. So the solution is still that we need a free market-- one in which no one is allowed to use the power of the state against others.

More to the point, the major issue in this thread is how the US government should treat corporations. Whatever foreign governments should do, I think it's clear that we'd be better off with a smaller federal government here in the states. There is no danger of Microsoft raiding our homes and forcing us to install Windoze on our computers with the government powerless to stop it. There is a large danger of Microsoft using the power of the government to bludgeon its competitors with unnecessary regulations.

They are perfectly capable of building factories to sell shoes to wealthy Westerners, but they never get the chance because Nike comes in and does it for them. And Nike shareholders don't live in the worker's country spending the profits in the worker's community.

I don't think you understand the economics of the situation. A factory is expensive. Yes, with enough effort, the locals *could* build a shoe factory, but it would take much longer than if Nike came in and did it, and it would take scarce capital from more pressing needs. Wage growth is directly driven by capital acquisition. It took us 150 years to go from an agricultural economy to a modern industrial one. Without Western help, it will likely take nearly as long for third-world nations to catch up.

Western capital provides a shortcut, by allowing its workers to benefit from the high productivity (and therefore high wages) of Western capital. But wages only rise once there is enough jobs that employters have to compete for workers. And that will only happen when a large number of companies establish "sweatshops" in the third world.

So I absolutely agree that corporations shouldn't be using third world governments to fleece other countries, but that doesn't mean that corporations can only do harm. What we need is global capitalism-- a system in which no one is allowed to coerce anyone else, but also in which capital and goods are allowed to flow freely around the world. The people who demonize corporations and restrict trade are hurting the poor in the third world by taking jobs from them.

If I throw a battery in the trash, yeah, I probably should have disposed of it 'properly', but the environmental consequences aren't nearly the same as if AT&T decides to throw its batteries in the trash.

But there is no fundamental difference here except that it's not cost-effective to go after you. In theory, though, you throwing a battery in the trash should be prosecuted every bit as much as AT&T throwing a million batteries in the trash. I don't see how there is any difference in kind here, only a difference of scale.

Corporations need to be held to exactly the same rules as individuals, and those rules need to be enforced. Please give me an example of something an individual should be allowed to do that a corporation should not.

Re:Why government is worse...

[Shadow Knight]

This comment contains so much absurdity, I don't know where to start... Let's try with this:

Government, on the other hand, has practically no direct obligations to taxpayers

Uh... what? That is blatantly false. If my representatives don't do what I want, I don't vote for them. The government does not decide who runs for president, corporations (money money money, man!) do. The government exists only in that it has a responsibility to taxpayers. Have you ever actually read the Declaration of Independence? Have you ever even seen a copy of the Constitution? I think you must not have. Have you ever voted? Ever? If not, STOP FUCKING COMPLAINING . The government answers directly to the voters.

Finally, the government has the power to tax, and the power to tax is the power to destroy

Can you justify this statement in any meaningful way? I suspect you can't, because it isn't true. The power to tax is the power to provide you with safety, security, benfits like public libraries. It is the power to provide your children with education. It is the power to prevent invasion by dictators. It is the power to protect and grow, not the power to destroy. And paying taxes is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A CITIZEN! To shirk that responsibility is to deny the society that gave you birth. You, and people like you, disgust me. I'm sorry.

The government has a military. Whenever someone tells me that government acts for the public interest, I look at our foreign policy.

That is evidence of the government acting for the public interest! The "public interest" refers, in this case, to citizens of the United States of America, not to citizens of any other country. Those people aren't paying taxes to the government of the US, so they don't get their interest served! It's pretty simple. The military of the US exists to defend the lawful, taxpaying citizens of the US. However, there certainly exist multi-national corporations with military might, too, and they don't have any such responsibilty.

Most importantly, most of the obnoxious things corporations have done were done using the power of the state

As I've said before, this is because the government forces corporations to work through legal means, not because the government empowers the corporations! If you take away the power of the state, that leaves only the power of the corporations. If you reduce the power of the government, you reduce it's ability to restrain the corporate might. All the things the corps have done through government pale in comparison to what they'd do without government.

Supreme Lord High Commander of the Interstellar Task Force for the Eradication of Stupidity

Re:Why government is worse...

[curril]

Counter-point

> 1. The government is ... bigger than any corporation.

The government makes lots of money, true. But whereas as corporation spends its money on itself, not its customers if at all possible, the government is supposed to spend the money it gets on the people who pay taxes.

The federal government is not a corporation. It consists of three branches that counter one another's power. It has to play by its own rules. When the DOJ took on Microsoft, it couldn't just arbitrarily start imposing penalties. It had to take them to court. If Microsoft decides that it doesn't like Netscape, it can arbitrarily decide to make its products incompatible, and Netscape has no say in the matter.

> 2. ... corporations have to at least do something useful ... Government ... has ... no direct obligations to the taxpayer.

Usefulness is in the eye of the beholder. Products such as tobacco, alcohol, and Furbies are of dubious usefulness, and yet they sell well. Corporation spend huge quantities of money trying to convince people that their products are 'useful' and that their competitor's products aren't. The government may not go out of business if its programs don't sell, but an unpopular program has ousted many a politician.

> 3. ... corporations ... are at least efficient.

Efficiency is not necessarily good. It is more 'efficient' to use third world sweat shops to produce goods since these countries have fewer laws protecting workers from exploitation. Government agencies that run under budgetary restraints can promote efficiency without circumventing rules that prevent exploitation.

> >. ... the power to tax is the power to destroy.

The interstate freeway system--built with your tax dollars--has had a tremendous positive impact on economic growth. It is unlikely that this system could have been built by private industry, since the only direct means of getting a profit is through toll booths, which run counter to the idea of a freeway.

Taxes redistribute money. Sometimes this harms the entity taxed to the benefit of other people, sometimes it even helps the people taxed by giving them a service they would have had a hard time getting otherwise.

> 5. The government has a military.

Corporations don't have military forces because they don't need them. If a corporation is threatened physically, it can count on the government to protect it, just like you can count on a police officer to protect you (in theory). If a corporation needed to use physical force to protect its interests, believe me, it would. Just look at old-time strike busting tactics, or at the quasi-military forces that drug cartels use.

> 6. ... reducing the government to its constitutional limits would end most corporate excesses

Huh? Corporate excesses were done within the power of the state, perhaps, but they weren't stopped until the state stopped them. Pollution controls, seat belts, minimum wages, etc. are all a result of the government reigning in corporate excesses.

--------

I am not trying to be an apologist for the government. The U.S. government currently sucks, big time. But reducing it or eliminating it in favor of corporations is not a good solution. Many problems associated with the government are caused by it by giving in to corporate interests, not because it is fighting them. Competition and the free market work well when there are many small players with similar resources. Today's economy is dominated by huge mega-corporations that don't have to be competitive in quality or service as long as they can shut their smaller rivals out of the market. They need to be regulated in order to be competitive. The difficulty lies getting government officials who understand economics and make it a priority rather than wasting their time debating a bloody stupid flag-burning amendment.

Re:Why government is worse...

[curril]

First, a little rant here, and then on to your points.

Companies make money. Period. They are not moral. They are not just. They are not compassionate. If they fail to make money, they fail. Nothing more. I get tired of people claiming that all of our problems will be solved if we just let the free market have its way. Companies are like fire. In and of itself, fire is neither good nor bad. It just is. It can be very useful and warm your house, smelt your iron, cure your bricks, or it can burn your house down, destroy your fields, kill your loved ones. Companies can provide you with products that improve your quality of life and keep you from harm, or they can dictate your decisions, hamper your potential, and provide you with dangerous products and working conditions.

A good government acts to mold the morality of corporations, forcing them to compete fairly, respect their workers and the environment, and yet still gives them the freedom to innovate and thrive. Most governments, including the US, unfortunately, don't seem to be on the ball. As a matter of fact, the US government is terrible. Regulators apparently care more about whether or not form WM-524 has been filled out correctly than about the company's actual practices. It is a bloated bureaucracy. But trimming fat does not mean feeding it to the corporations.

>>> 3. ... corporations ... are at least efficient.
>>Efficiency is not necessarily good...
>I have a problem with Left wing First World ranting about third world sweat shops...

Wow. That is the first time anybody has called me Left wing (with a capital L, even). Cool. ;-) Usually it's the other way around. But personal attacks aside...

Granted, sweat shops can benefit third-world economies. I never said that they didn't. But that's not the point. The point is that, left to its own devices, a company will do whatever it takes to save money, including placing workers in unsafe, low-wage conditions. A company has no interest in providing respirators for its coal miners, since by the time black lung kills them off they will have been replaced. Yeah, some safety precautions save money in the long run because accidents cost money, but most safety measures aren't cost-effective. And if a company can get away with paying you a couple of bucks an hour, it will. It will have to, since its competitors will paying that wage to its workers if it can.

A corporate sweat shop may improve the lot of its workers somewhat, but a locally owned company would help them even more since the profits of the company would flow back to the community, rather than back to the states. Mult-national corporations hurt third world economies by using their cheap labor and natural resources without returning the profits to them. You assume that the shoe factory wouldn't exist if it weren't for Nike building it, but it is perfectly reasonable that a locally-owned factory could produce the goods and sell them to Nike (or other vendors as well).

>>> 6. ... reducing the government to its constitutional limits would end most corporate excesses
>>Huh? Corporate excesses ... Pollution...
>In the 19 century polution was dealt with by...being sued...

I find it ironic that you advocate lawsuits over law enforcement, considering how much the government is involved in handling litigation. Lawsuits are costly, requiring considerable resources that most individuals don't have, and it is incredibly difficult to get everybody affected on board in order to have the manpower to fight a corporation. What's more, while fear of a lawsuit might serve as a deterrent from dumping hexavalent chromium into the local swimming pool, it really isn't effective in handling more diffuse pollutants, such as CFCs, or tailpipe emissions.

>>seat belts,
>How is this corpreat exess?

The car companies would never have bothered putting seat belts in cars without government intervention (there is a quote from Henry Ford to that effect, in fact). And there never would have been consumer demand for them.

>>minimum wages,
>Economics 101:
Effective(higher than the wage would be in the free market) minimum wage causes un employment...

Economics 102: The more money workers have, the more money they will spend on consumer products, requiring more jobs to make those products. And if the US does not have an effective minimum wage (higher than the free market) why are there significant number of companies paying less than minimum wage to undocumented workers in spite of the low unemployment rate?

Once again, I am not trying to paint a glowing picture of government. I just think it's wrong to say that corporate-control=good, government-control = bad.

Re:Why government is worse...

[curril]

>Products such as tobacco, alcohol, and Furbies are of dubious usefulness, and yet they sell well.
That's an arrogant statement... Who is going to benefit more, the consumer of the taxpayer?

Ok, instead of Furbies, how about cocaine? Or LSD? Or pre-teen prostitutes? There is a demand for all of these things. People buy and use self-destructive things all the time. A taxpayer benefits by having access to these items limited to the point that they can exercise self-control. What those items are and what the location of that point is a topic of considerable debate, but corporations have no interest in keeping products away from the consumer, even if it is in the consumer's best interest. As far as politicians go, if a politician does what is necessary to get re-elected, are not the voters getting what they 'paid' for? So you don't happen to like the politician or his/her agenda, who are you to say that the voters are wrong?

>Efficiency is not necessarily good. It is more 'efficient' to use third world sweat shops...
I love it when wealthy Westerners self-righteously denounce "exploitation" of the third world. This indicates not just a lack of understanding of economics, but a complete lack of respect for the people who work in those sweatshops.

ROTFL ... if you could just see my bank acount right now..."wealthy Westerner" indeed. But, admittedly, better off than most people in Paraguay, where, incidently, my sister has spent the last three years. I even managed to visit her for a while, and Paraguay is as third world as it gets. I know that any paying job down there is better than begging on the streets. But I have seen where an entire community was kicked off its land with no compensation, their homes burnt to the ground, because of a corporation. Now instead of farming their own land, they work for the ranch owner at subsistence wages. As I stated in a response to an AC post above, multi-nationals don't care about the safety or quality of life of their workers, and the profit the multi-nationals make doesn't benefit the workers community. It angers me that people like *you* think that the people of these countries could not improve their lot without foreign companies coming in and doing it for them. It indicates a complete lack of respect for the people who live in those countries. ;-) They are perfectly capable of building factories to sell shoes to wealthy Westerners, but they never get the chance because Nike comes in and does it for them. And Nike shareholders don't live in the worker's country spending the profits in the worker's community.

The point is that we need the government to protect us from everyone's "excesses"-- corporate or otherwise.

Hear, hear.

My problem is that we have government laws specifically targeted at corporations, when if fact corporations have no more power than any other type of organization. Without the power of the government, corporations are no threat to anyone.

Small companies are not a threat. Large companies, however, have the resources to crush any individual who happens to get in their way. They have to play by separate rules, because the consequences of their actions are so much larger. If I throw a battery in the trash, yeah, I probably should have disposed of it 'properly', but the environmental consequences aren't nearly the same as if AT&T decides to throw its batteries in the trash.

Re:Why government is worse...

[curril]

I never said that drugs should be illegal. Heck, I didn't even say that pre-teen prostitution should be illegal. For all I know, there are twelve-year olds out there who want to get into the business but can't due to overly moralistic social structures. My point was that companies are perfectly willing to sell you things that aren't good for you and will take advantage of you and will do so as long as it is legal. They will even do so when it's not legal if they can get away with it.

As far as companies being the *true* cause of shaky drug laws, that may or may not be true. But even if it is true, it still only goes to show that the companies were only interested in their profits, not in the well being of their customers.

Government, on the other hand, is supposed to keep the well-being of the citizen in mind while formulating policies. The fact that it often doesn't is a reflection of the fact that politicians are elected on the basis of visibility (read money) and charisma, characteristics that don't lend themselves to altruistic concern for the little guy.

Re:Why government is worse...

[spiralx]

Ok, instead of Furbies, how about cocaine? Or LSD? Or pre-teen prostitutes?

Well, the illegal drugs were pretty much illegal due to the actions of business propaganda earlier on in this century. Marijuana was made illegal because a large paper-maker was worried about how hemp could make cheaper paper than the process and materials he used, so he funded a campaign saying that it made blacks extremely violent when they smoked it. Soon, it was made illegal. Opium was originally smoked by the Chinese in their wash houses and it made them efficient workers. Other rival businesses didn't like this and campaigned to have it made illegal.

Since then drugs have fallen under the influence of the Putian work ethic, and have been made illegal without real consideration into their effects. Their dangers are far less than is typically presented in the government's "War on Drugs", and indeed, even heroin is less addictive than nicotene, a substance which causes illness and death but is still legal.

As for pre-teen prostitutes, well, that is the sort of thing which sensible legislation does prevent. Since it is clearly a case where someone's liberty is being oppressed against their will then it is completely different from the situation of drugs, where someone is prevented from making a decision based upon a law with distinctly shaky foundations.

Re:Why government is worse...

[gilroy]

Quoth the poster (responding to someone else, shown in italics)

I think you must not have. Have you ever voted? Ever? If not, STOP **** COMPLAINING. The government answers directly to the voters.

I've voted every year since I turned 18, and not one of the people I've voted for has ever won. You want to tell me the government is reflecting my interests?

In an elected representative democracy, the government isn't supposed to reflect your interests. It's supposed to reflect the interests of the people, with a weight according to the percentage that vote a certain way. (Note: Not "feel a certain way". It only counts, in democracy, if you actually vote.) If most of the country doesn't agree with you, then the government shouldn't reflect your interests.

An important corrollary is that you must always retain the legal right to make your P.O.V. known, so that you have the opportunity to convince the rest of the country that your interests are their interests, too. But until you achieve that, sorry, you don't actually have a right to influence.

Those people aren't paying taxes to the government of the US, so they don't get their interest served!

Oh I see, so they aren't US citizen,s and so therefore there's nothing wrong with killing them by the truckload! ... Does the concept of human rights mean anything to you?

But the concept of rights, especially enforceable ones, is the fundament of government and is anathema to a utterly free-market world. Human rights are rights you possess for the mere fact of being human -- they supersede (in theory) the rights and powers accrued by money, or guns, or anything else. They are intrinsically political, and thus intrinsically linked to government. In fact, the Enlightenment conception of government -- the philosophical basis of the entire system in the US, at least -- holds that governments (a) exist to secure the human rights of their citizens and (b) are necessary for that purpose, to some extent (open to debate).

Corporations, on the other hand, have no commitment to human rights. They exist to maximize shareholder profit, and if that means squashing someone, well, that's part of the plan. They play by the rules when they're being watched (by potential consumers) or when they're being forced to (by government), but playing by the rules is not part of their intrinsic nature. Because to a corporatist, the only value is economic value.

I'd also like to comment on an almost-quotation used by the original poster. The correct quote is

The power to tax involves the power to destroy.
--Chief Justice John Marshall

Note that he didn't say it is the power to destroy. Sure, taxation poses certain risks and imposes certain burdens. It shouldn't be left unwatched and unchecked. But Marshall never intended his words to argue against the very existence of taxation.

If I fail to pay my taxes, I will get thrown in jail. That's coercion. I never consented to the authority of the government, and I see no reason why I am bound to obey their command.

Unless the government has somehow blocked your emigration, you have consented to the authority of the government, since you remain a citizen and remain in the country. You are free to lobby to change things, or you are free to leave. If your personal comfort is such that you would find it inconvenient to leave, well, that isn't really the concern of the US government.

I don't like what Clinton's doing. Who do you propose I vote for, Bush? What is he going to do differently?

I see this a lot and frankly, it is beginning to annoy me. If the two parties have evolved towards each other, then it means that they are moving towards the common center of the country. Otherwise, one party would attempt to seize an advantage by moving more closely to the center of gravity of opinion. (Read: Democrats 1992, or for that matter, Republicans 1980.) If you really think the last eight years under Clinton would have proceeded exactly the same under Bush and then Quayle, then you simply haven't been paying attention.

Has it occured to you that people are more than just revenue-generators for the government?

Has it occured to you than people are more than just revenue-generators for the corporations? That's what ticks off the corporations so much -- when consumers end up having opinions, rather than simply open wallets. Why was Nike upset about revelations about working conditions? Because the American citizenry has values other than the coolest shoes... they did care about working conditions.

At the very least, the government at its core has the citizens. The corporations has only its shareholders. I'd prefer the former.

I would hardly claim the US government is universally beneficient. I would never claim it never oversteps its bounds, or that it never wastes our tax money, or that it never ignores its citizens. I would never argue that it is a perfect representative democracy or that the system works perfectly all the time.

But I would, and do, and will forever, argue that it works amazingly well considering all the different systems that litter history. It can be criticized because it all too often and all too casually fails to live up to its own professed ideals. But those ideals are real and valuable and vital. It is better to do evil by failing your purposes than to do evil by having evil purposes.

Re:The government is still the problem...

[binarybits]

Two points. First, when I say I want to reduce the power of the state, I don't mean I would eliminate it entirely. The sole function of the state would be to prevent people from coercing one another. That most emphatically includes the government.

Secondly, I'm having trouble following your argument. Which corporations have you seen impose taxes on us? Which corporations can tell us which drugs we're allowed to consume? Which corporation throws us in jail if we violate one of their nitpicky rules.

Certainly if the government were eliminated entirely, there is a threat from corporations (or others) taking over. But as long as the government remains in place to protect you from the corporations, what is there to worry about?

The world is not all about power. It is possible for a society to exist without being at each others' throats.

Re:The government is still the problem...

[binarybits]

But it is hard to "take away" power. If something can be done, then the power to do it exists somewhere. Often the best that can be done is to move the power somewhere else. Even that is hard to do. The power to use violence has been "taken away" from non-governmental actors--but I haven't observed a cessation of violent acts in the world.

This is very true. The issue of limiting the power of the government is probably *the* most important problem in political science. What it boils down to, though, is that the power rests with the people, and ultimately it is the people who decide how it is used. If the people approve of the kind of Big Government we have now, it will continue to grow. If there were a clear preference for smaller government, that would happen as well.

What dismays me about debates between "big government" and "big business" is that people don't seem to understand that government has a life of its own, and that you cannot give the government the power to do something you like without simultaneously giving it the power to do things you don't like. If the government is going to subsidize the arts, schools, museums, farmers, and other worthy causes, then corporations are going to find ways to get their fair share as well. Your "good" cause is someone elses waste.

So the issue isn't "which causes should the government support," but "how much power should the federal government have?" And people need to understand that if they support giving the government more power, that power is going to eventually be used for things that they don't support.

Re:UPS & FedEx versus USPS

[binarybits]

In other words, those who choose to live in the country are subsidized by those who live in the city. Why shouldn't people pay the full cost of mail service?

Also, I'm pretty sure UPS and FedEx deliver packages to rural areas, so even there your theory doesn't make any sense.

And I agree with you-- the regulations on the USPS should be repealed, and UPS and FedEx should be allowed to provide first class service.

So vote Libertarian

[binarybits]

We're the only ones who are willing to cut the government down to size.

Re:The government is still the problem...

[binarybits]

Ever hear of the Microsoft Tax? even members of the company have refered to like that. It isn't a 'true' tax, but millions of people pay it anyway.

That is only charged to those who choose to purchase a PC from a manufacturer who chooses to accept MS's terms. They are free to pay for retail Windoze if they want, or to sell another OS. The fact is, that's what most people want. Yes, it sucks for those who don't want Windows, but this is trivial compared with what the government charges.

Ever hear of an HMO?

You mean the quasi-governmental organizations that exist after 50 years of government meddling in the health care industry? In a free market, people would pay for their own routine medical care, and insurance would only apply to emergencies. And HMO's only tell you which drugs they will pay for. You are welcome to switch plans or pay for your own services if you want to.

You've got me there, the MPAA is a collection of corporation.

Like you said, this is due to stupid copyright laws-- a *government* creation. That's my point: the goal should be to repeal stupid laws, not demonize the companies that take advantage of them.

Frankly, I don't care if politicians pretend to care about me. Corporations (at least for the most part) cannot do anything to me unless I sign up for their product. How exactly are they such a big threat without the power of government to back them up?

The government is still the problem...

[binarybits]

What always puzzles me about this is that when people complain about how evil big corporations are, they always give examples of corporations abusing people *using government.* So the problem isn't just that the corporations are abusing government powers (they are) but that the power is there to abuse in the first place. Take away the power of the government to run everyone's life, and corporations will no longer be able to use it to exploit us.

So to the extent that corporations are a threat to our liberty, the answer is *still* to reduce the government to its constitutional limits. Once we do that, the power of Big Business will go away with it.

Re:The government is still the problem...

[Col. Klink (retired)]

Well, it's hard not to be swayed by your use of the bold tag, but still...

The first regulation of industry in the US was the Interstate Commerce Committee (ICC) established around the turn of the last century. At that time it was thought that the railroad cartels were unfairly charging higher rates for less-popular routes. Consumer advocates of the day felt that the railroads should charge a few for distance and should not discriminate based on destination.

The first commissioner of the ICC was a former railroad lawyer. After all, who knows the industry better than a former member. His solution to the discriminatory pricing was to set uniform rates just like the advocates wanted. Of course, he set them at the *highest* rates, which the so-called cartels had always wanted in the first case but were never able to maintain. Thanks to the power of law and force of government, they were able to establish a working cartel.

Very little has changed in 100 years. Most regulators come from the industry they regulate. Most industries petition *for* government licensure. What better way to limit the competition than to increase the costs of entry?

There is, of course, competition for regulation. Economist George Stigler studied regulation in trucking vs. railroad. Trucking is, by most definitionsm an almost text-book example of perfect competition. The cost of entry is nothing compared to rail and one man can run the entire business. In addition to competing with each other, they also competed with railroads. Stigler found a strong correlation between the amount of rail and the truck weight regulations between the states. In some states, the trucking regulations were actually more severe between locations that were also served by rail.

History seems to be against the idea that we can create a regulatory body *and* keep it from being hijacked by the industry being regulated.

Re:The government is still the problem...

[Shadow Knight]

So to the extent that corporations are a threat to our liberty, the answer is *still* to reduce the government to its constitutional limits. Once we do that, the power of Big Business will go away with it.

This is pure, uncontaminated BULLSHIT . The power of the govenment is 100% of the tiny, small shield that does exist between us and Big Business. If you take the power away from the government, you are NOT going to give it to the people. Reduce the power of the govenment, and you will see a direct increase in the power of Big Business. The reason the corps work through the govenment is not because it's easier, but because they have to. The power of govenment ensures that the businesses cannot directly take away your rights. The government forces the companies to work through legal, constitutional means, which they otherwise would not be constrained to. If you reduce the power of the government, you let loose the only leash on the businesses. The corporate soldiers will arrive to enforce their policies on you, and you won't have ANY say in it, not even the amount of say a vote gives you in government. I dread the day... and it's coming, if we don't do something about it. The government is the only power I have any part of. I don't own stock, I can't afford stock, and therefore the corporations don't have to listen to me. And I can't afford not to eat or live, either, so I can't afford to vote with my dollars. The corporations are NOT looking out for your best interest, and there's NOTHING you can do about it. If my representative in congress doesn't at least give a microsecond of thought to my best interest, I won't vote for him/her. Small difference sure, but a difference nonetheless. I guess that's enough out of me. I'm probably gonna lose Karma over this, because it isn't the same old "libertarian" (read "Anti-government paranoid," as opposed to my anti-corp paranoia) nonesense.

Supreme Lord High Commander of the Interstellar Task Force for the Eradication of Stupidity

Re:The government is still the problem...

[delmoi]

Which corporations have you seen impose taxes on us?

Ever hear of the Microsoft Tax? even members of the company have refered to like that. It isn't a 'true' tax, but millions of people pay it anyway.

Which corporations can tell us which drugs we're allowed to consume?

Ever hear of an HMO?

Which corporation throws us in jail if we violate one of their nitpicky rules

You've got me there, the MPAA is a collection of corporation.

Yes, the companys were working through the governments, but it dosn't really matter. They did it. The government on the other hand has to at least pretend to care about us...

Re:The government is still the problem...

[look]

I agree. And then after we get rid of THAT one (come on, the ability to create an immortal entity which is considered a person in the eyes of the law? What kind of right is that!?), next I would abolish copyright law. It seems that the corporations which are so anxious to monitor and control us are all in the information business. Get rid of their corporate-welfware GOVERNMENT granted monopoly on information, and we'll see how things go...

Re:The government is still the problem...

[Mr. Slippery]

If you reduce the power of the government, you let loose the only leash on the businesses. The corporate soldiers will arrive to enforce their policies on you, and you won't have ANY say in it...

Actually, the first government power I'd eliminate - or at least reduce - would be the chartering of corporations. What we need is not so much more regulation on powerful corporations, as governments that don't give much power to corporations in the first place.

Re:The government is still the problem...

[randombit]

So to the extent that corporations are a threat to our liberty, the answer is *still* to reduce the government to its constitutional limits. Once we do that, the power of Big Business will go away with it.

You're absolutely right. However, there are other concerns besides just corps using government power (examples of this being DMCA, the entire patent system, etc), but also the absolutley enourmous influence that the big media companies (Disney and Time-Warner/AOL coming to mind) wield. They can basically put whatever they want on the evening news, and most people will accept it at face value without thinking about the conflict of interest that is there. Also threatening litigation, etc: even if it's totally non-legit, they can really fuck with people who can't afford a team of top-flight lawyers.

Hmmm... I note that you are a fellow bit. :P

Re:The government is still the problem...

[bobv-pillars-net]

Hegel would have loved this guy.

Re:The government is still the problem...

[pbrewer]

So the problem isn't just that the corporations are abusing government powers (they are) but that the power is there to abuse in the first place. Take away the power of the government to run everyone's life, and corporations will no longer be able to use it to exploit us.

But it is hard to "take away" power. If something can be done, then the power to do it exists somewhere. Often the best that can be done is to move the power somewhere else. Even that is hard to do. The power to use violence has been "taken away" from non-governmental actors--but I haven't observed a cessation of violent acts in the world.

Other powers have proven very valuable, even though they are dangerous. The power to forgive private debts, for example. The US constitution prohibits that power to the states, but provides for a "uniform" bankruptcy code. If you got rid of the power (prohibited it to the federal government as well), it would cause serious dislocations to the economy.

None of which is to disagree with your statement that the government should stay within its constitutional limits. The US constitution isn't perfect, but its better than what we've got now.

Re:The government is still the problem...

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Also threatening litigation, etc: even if it's totally non-legit, they can really fuck with people who can't afford a team of top-flight lawyers.

Litigation only works because a court (i.e. government) can use force to take money away from you and give it to those that are attacking you. Reduce the ability of the court to do so and you weaken the threat from the corporations. Make it extremely difficult for plaintiffs to get awarded any damages beyond profits gained from any allegedly illegal activities and people won't be scared of having their personal funds forcibly taken away from them and possibly going into poverty of bankruptcy. Then free speech won't be chilled as often as it is now.

Government IS the underlying problem much of the time. Litigation isn't just something the plaintiff does to you, it is something the government does to you on their behalf. It isn't the school yard bully beating you up, it is the school yard bully getting the principal to beat you up. And now the beating you get is legiitimized in the public eye and you are the bad guy. That makes it worse.

Re:The government is still the problem...

[Jebediah21]

There is more we can do and it takes very little effort. Since the current government throws us in jail for making a statement, we all must file taxes to support whatever the government wants (ever hear about the Black Budget?). The best way to this this is with our money. On your tax form, don't give your $5 to the republican or democratic party if you don't believe they are helping much. I gave my $5 to the Green Party. I know they want to reduce the presence of corporations and protect the environmet. Do you think Clinton would have won if not for all the monetary support?

Letter to Salon

[Omnifarious]

The conclusion that any admission that somehow technology is inadequate to the task of guaranteeing rights is a shift from being a libertarian seems unjustified. Libertarianism existed long before than was any hope of trying to guarantee rights through the use of technology. In fact, one of its tenants is that one of government's rightful functions is to protect us from the use of force or fraud by another.

The documentation for PGP explicitly mentions the idea of 'the web of trust'. If you trust your neighbor, sign their key. If you trust their trust of others, accept their signature of another's key as a mark the key is trustworthy. This is a social construct, not a technological one. It is a social construct whose existence is supported by technology.

As for realizing that corporations can be evil, and that libertarianism != support for corporatism... Well, I think this is a healthy change in libertarianism. Corporations have long been a blind spot of libertarians. They are a government supported (i.e. by laws supporting their existence, and providing some immunity for top management for laws broken by the corporation) entity that has none of the controls that might normally be applied to such an entity, such as the requirement to act in accordance with the constitution.

Even the idea of a labor union is not contrary to the spirit of libertarianism. Government enforcement of collective bargaining laws is.

People getting together to support eachother is actually very libertarian IMHO. :-)

As for libraries, I would gladly pay out of my own pocket to help support libraries if such payment were not already forcibly extracted from me.

In conclusion, I think you are finding that aspects of a political ideology you treasure have something in common with the ethos of the people who've helped build the net. Very different from them changing their ideology to be closer to yours.

suspicion of corporations can still be libertarian

[elmegil]

First, I don't think that you can necessarily say that it's not libertarian to advocate some limits on corporate power. Maybe not Libertarian (i.e. part of the official position held by the Libertarian party), but I think you can be in favor of liberty and suspicious of government while at the same time being suspicious of corporations.

After all, being an advocate of liberty seems likely to put you into conflict with ANY large conglomeration of power. Just because governments traditionally are the largest brokers of group power doesn't mean that the modern corporate form of the same thing isn't just as suspect.

As a libertarian (note no big L) I don't want ANYONE trying to curb my liberty if I'm not harming others. That means I don't want governments telling me it's illegal to do certain things in the privacy of my home, and it also means I don't want corporations using the power of their enormous money pools to prevent me from being able to see entertainments that interest me, or spamming me with advertising, or whatever. If one of these groups can be turned to curbing the other, so be it, I'll be pragmatic and let them try to balance against each other, and good things can come from that. That doesn't mean I'm not a libertarian. Nor does it mean that Diffie, Stephenson, Zimmerman, et.al. aren't still libertarians as well, even if they aren't classical big-L Libertarians (which I'm not sure they ever were).

Re:Governments and corporations

[Stiletto]

Boy, I must have missed that memo. Let's see do corportations:

Take taxes from you?

Of course they do. Ever heard of product bundling? Price gouging? Monopolies? These are all legal ways of extracting as much cash as possible from their customers, giving them basically no alternative choice.

Start wars?

What do you think the Persian Gulf war was about? If you don't think oil companies were behind that you need to remove your head from your ass. Corporate interests also frequently influence our policy-makers to enact tarrifs on foreign goods and harsh trade sanctions, which if you happen to live in one of those other companies you'd understand is worse on their economy than war!

Engage in gross acts of waste?

I need only remind you of the Exxon oil spill in Alaska, and the many many cost-saving acts chemical plants are known to do which destroy the environment and/or directly harm their customers.

________________________________

Governments and corporations

[Stiletto]

Berners-Lee starts thinking about what has happened to the Web since he dreamed it up: e-commerce, big corporations, money. "Libertarians are used to fighting the government," he says, "and not corporations ..."

What Berners-Lee is forgetting, is that today, corporations ARE the government. Sure we may wave our hands around about "democracy" and elect "representatives", but who are we kidding? We all know that our politicians are for sale to the highest bidder, and the highest bidders are the huge, multinational corporations.

So things haven't changed. Libertarians are still fighting big government, today in the form of big corporations.
________________________________

Re:Governments and corporations

[ChadN]

Boy, I must have missed that memo. Let's see do corportations:

Take taxes from you?
Yes, they obtain government subsidies through blackmail (ie. "We will move our operations overseas if you don't subsidize us."), and can use those subsidies in ways that do not contribute back to the local or national economy.

Start wars?
Yes, there are numerous turn of the century insurrections that came about as a result of corporations and cartels manipulating the governments (including the U.S.) to use force. Our recent invation of Panama can largely be viewed as an attempt to retain control of the canal, keep shipping fees reasonable, etc.

Engage in gross acts of waste?
Good lord yes! Wanton pollution, overfishing, overharvesting of resources, are all examples of waste. The "corporate welfare", as I mentioned before, can also be considered as a waste of government funds, when it is used by corporations for means that are non-beneficial for those who payed them (ie. the taxpayers)

Hmm... guess not... I'll take corporations over government any day of the week.
You're in luck, corporations are increasingly able to use government as a tool to obtain their own ends, by proxy. You may prefer corporations to government, but then, you really have no choice, do you?

Re:Governments and corporations

[Rombuu]

. Libertarians are still fighting big government, today in the form of big corporations

Boy, I must have missed that memo. Let's see do corportations:

Take taxes from you?
Start wars?
Engage in gross acts of waste?

Hmm... guess not... I'll take corporations over government any day of the week.

Re:Governments and corporations

[briancarnell]

Huh? One of the main reasons the Amazon rain forest gets logged so heavily is because of the huge tax breaks and other benefits that governments like Brazil have traditionally given to logging companies.

Re:Governments and corporations

[benwb]

Start wars? In 1996 British petroleum basically bought the Colombian army to protect the construction of a pipeline that they were building to the caribbean coast. Some of the things that they did to people protesting their activities were very frightening. Would you like to know more?

Admittedly, the referenced link is a little inflammatory, but the facts are basically correct. So yes, corporations don't have wars-- in the sense that the US had a police action in vietnam.

Re:Governments and corporations

[sjc12xu]

EXACTLY - a capitalist system IS NOT a democratic system. The entire premise of us vs. them found in Libertarian arguments highlights the major flaw of capitalism. The government does not represent THE PEOPLE it represents THE POWERFUL, and in a capitalist system those with money - corporations which are considered individuals - are the powerful.

Re:Governments and corporations

[Scrymarch]

Or more interestingly, corporations like the East India Company, who not only had a mandate from the government but had their own armed forces which were also part of the British Army. More I think about the history of corporations more they seem to be outgrowths of the government; even Microsoft lives in the hollow of a giant tax break.

Re:Governments and corporations

[sqlrob]

Hmmmm, let's see...

Take taxes from you?

Why do 2 near identical items from two different companies cost different amounts? You pay extra for a name. Sounds almost like a tax to me.

Start wars?

Don't know on this. But it certainly seems like it could happen. Do munition companies foment turmoil to increase sales?

Engage in gross acts of waste?

You're kidding, right? This one happens all of the time. Corporations waste as much as governments. I doubt any SINGLE corporation does, but the amalgation certainly does. This also depends on your definition of waste. If you mean money, probably not, since they would not be in business. In resources, time, and human lives, corporations can meet goverenments.

Opaque Red Glasses

[Outland Traveller]

I've read the comments so far and I haven't read one which echoes what I felt toward this article.

Maybe I just don't "get it" but it seems to me like the author had an agenda, and portrayed the whole conference in a framework that is ill-fitting and contrived. I think she reads a bit too far into the meaning of events with regard to privacy-rights activists shifting from "libertarian ideals" to "socialist" ideals.

It looks like what's going on is simply that the "enemy" has changed forms. I'm defining enemy as an entity that wants to limit the public practice of knowledge and/or burden the public with suspect invasions of privacy.

When this entity is the government (Echelon, Clipper Chip, DCMA) you're going to see the technological-aware speak out against the government. When this entity is corporations (specific patent abuses, abuse of monopolist power, draconian employee conduct policies, etc) you're going to see the tech-aware come down against corporations.

Of course, the two are linked. In the USA corporations derive their powers from the government, and this power with respect to intellectual property has steadily increased in recent years.

As the battleground changes, it's not surprising to me that tactics change. The goal remains the same, I think: personal freedom to share information, and personal privacy. People will disagree with the specifics of how far this should go of course, but it seems that for most of us the answer is closer to "quite far" than "not very far".

It's not surprising that this article has drawn criticism. It seems to me to be almost flamebait, confusing the issues with ready preconceptions.

-Outland Traveller

"It's a dirty song but someone's got to sing it" - Faith no More

Re:Opaque Red Glasses

[El Volio]

I think you're right. Someone who fights for freedom and liberty isn't purely defined by their enemy (at least not in the long view), but by the cause.

IOW, a libertarian (or anyone else who may not be 'libertarian' but does believe in individual freedoms) isn't defined by "opposed to government", but by "in favor of individual rights". This is a positive criterion, not a negative one.

Related, but not a flame

[Zico]

VA Linux's purchase of Andover.net was trumpeted as being worth 1.06 billion dollars. Surely it had to be dependent on VA Linux's stock price, because otherwise that'd mean that they'd be paying more than half their entire worth for Andover.net (LNUX's market cap is at $1.702 billion right now). Can anyone familiar with the matter give a quick update as to how much LNUX would be paying for ANDN if the deal was closed today? Those of us who don't have a chance to check out EDGAR right now will be eternally grateful.

Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

Re:Correct as usual-

[Zico]

Whoa, you predicted that MSFT stock would go down after the judge's ruling? You, sir, are a true genius -- no way anyone else could've figured that one out. My heartfelt congratulations.

Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

Well done, Michael

[Zico]

Hopefully this is a trend by your fellow crew to stop posting inflammatory tripe just because the submitter happened to include it. Sure, there are going to be a ton of trolls on every article anyway, but it's even worse when you put the flamebait right there in the story itself. Thanks.

Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

Re:Well done, Michael

[jellicle]

What sort of political correctness? If you neither praised nor bashed the story, how could I ... oh, never mind. People will whine regardless.

FYI, that story was posted at about 6AM EDT this morning, when I got up and read the submissions bin. Yes, the slashdot engine has the ability to post-date stuff so it can be scheduled for some time in the future. No, slashdot doesn't post everything for Now() because then you'd have ten stories on the front page at 9AM when the Commander and Hemos read the previous night's submissions, and nothing for the rest of the day.

In other words, your submission was way late and was presumably deleted because it was a duplicate of a story already set to run in the early afternoon.

But hey, I'm probably making this up. It was probably political correctness ("Too neutral! Let's spike it!") that did your submission in.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org

Re:this reminds me of a Bruce Sterling quip

[Sloppy]

What's your PGP key?

Don't use 'em.

If he didn't sign it, how do we know it was really Bruce Sterling who said that. The real Bruce Sterling is probably a pro-PGP fanatic!

---

this reminds me of a Bruce Sterling quip

[sethg]

Excerpt from The Sterling FAQ:

What's your PGP key?

Don't use 'em. I never knew a real-life computer crime cop or investigator who paid any attention to deciphering encryption. I regard this as a 99% theoretical form of "security." Using big number-crunching high-tech to protect the brief transmission of Internet email gives people a false sense of security. If you get in trouble, it won't be because you were tapped and cracked by the NSA. It'll be because somebody you trusted ratted on you (or because you bragged). Trust me on this. If you're really worried about your privacy, stop using credit cards and shred your trash.

(Hmm, this also ties in with the discussion of WAVE...)
--
"But, Mulder, the new millennium doesn't begin until January 2001."

Re:this reminds me of a Bruce Sterling quip

[hemul]

The same people will argue that owning semi-automatic weapons is no defense against a tyranical government, "They'll bring bigger guns", but really, wouldn't you prefer your chances with an AK-47 rather than a slingshot?

I'd prefer my chances in a society which wouldn't let things get to that. I think that makes me an anarchist, but it sure don't make me a libertarian.

For the record, i'm sort of liberal democrat. For you americans, that's sort of like communism because it's left of fascism.

Re:this reminds me of a Bruce Sterling quip

[Anonymous Covard]

When it gets to the point that encryption is just a standard part of the OS, and most all your communications are encrypted, the law-enforcement agencies are going to either have to:
a.) spend alot more money on encryption breaking techniques
b.) rely alot more on your cohorts to ratt out on you.

Or c.) mandate a back door be installed in every legal product.

Will the governments attempt to thwart encryption adoption in new more aggresive ways? I don't think so.

You mean like the Clipper chip? Government escrow of cryptographic keys? The right to sneak in and install a hardware tap on your computer? All these and more have been either attempted or proposed by the U.S. Government in the last decade. As long as Louis privacy-should-be-illegal Freeh is Director of the FBI, there will be a sustained, full-force attack from the highest levels of the American justice system against anything which could impact the ability of the FBI to monitor your life. Count on it.

Re:Still about protecting rights...

[Arandir]

At whose behest did the government do this?

Who gives a rat's ass about behests! You're completely ignoring the point. The government has sold us out to the highest bidder but you still can't find anything wrong with the government?

on an urelated side note

[cambyses]

how many astronauts can you fit in a car?
the answer is 11
2 in the front
2 in the back
7 in the ashtray

your tasteless humour for today

Neil Stephenson's speech?

[Kaa]

Anyone knows if it's available on the 'net? That's the second time I hear about how good it was. I'd like to read it.

Kaa

Re:Government and corporations

[Kaa]

One word. Microsoft.

One word. Linux.

Kaa

Re:Government and corporations

[Kaa]

money is more than just something you buy stuff with, but a way of keeping score.

I rest my case. Keeping score in games the very rich play doesn't concern me nearly is much as people who are power-hungry.

If you look at the history of the XX century you'll find that the kind of people you should be afraid of (from Hitler and Stalin to Pol Pot and Kim Ir Sen) did not come to power through money and were not very interested in money anyway.

People living downwind of the United Carbide Plant in Bhopal might disagree...

If you are going to use industrial accidents, I'll use wars: kinda "government accidents". Where were more people killed?

Or the people screwed by big tobacco who lied when they knew smoking was a)addictive and b) killed.

Come on! Show me a smoker who doesn't know that smoking is addictive and dangerous. Smoking is a matter of personal choice and I don't believe this whining about how Joe Camel came to me, tied me up, and pushed his cigarettes into my mouth.

Even in the First World, it's very difficult for me to ignore, say, car manafacturers, even though I don't own a car.

And how so? Besides, we are talking about individual corporations, not the whole industries. Besides, let's say you want to (1) not have a car; (2) smoke pot. Should you be more afraid of Ford or DEA?

Kaa

Government and corporations

[Kaa]

In a who-is-the-most-evil-of-them-all contest between the government and the corporations I vote firmly for the government. Three brief reasons:

(1) Business attracts people interested in money. Government attracts people interested in power. I find the the second kind more repugnant and much more dangerous.

(2) A government can do much nastier things to you than a corporation can. The absolute worse thing that a corporation can do is sue you into bankrupcy. A government, OTOH, can put you in jail, confiscate your property and do other most unpleasant things.

(3) If I dislike a corporation, I can more or less ignore it: not use its services and products, turn away from it's advertising, etc. Now a government is much, much harder to ignore.

Kaa

Re:Government and corporations

[Mr. Slippery]

In a who-is-the-most-evil-of-them-all contest between the government and the corporations I vote firmly for the government.

I've seen this point made several times in this thread, and I think it's misleading. Why does it matter which is the lesser evil? We're not - or at least we shouldn't - being asked to choose one or the other to run our lives. We should be looking at the problem of two evil forces and figuring out how to lessen the total evil.

My suggestion: in the long run, reduce the state's power overall, and especally it's power to create corporations and to place wealth in the hands of a few (by giving away land use and mineral rights, creating intellectual "property" for corporations, etcetera). In the short term, divert more state power to fighting corporate power - let the two bad guys slug it out, that'll keep them busy and maybe they'll leave the rest of us alone.

Re:Government and corporations

[StrawberryFrog]

> Business attracts people interested in money. Government attracts people interested in power.

Money is power measured. Nowhere is this more evident than in Washington DC.

> If I dislike a corporation, I can more or less ignore it.

One word. Microsoft.

Re:Government and corporations

[orac2]

Wow. Not bad, three out of three points are cobblers, let's take them one by one:

>(1) Business attracts people interested in money. Government attracts people interested in power. I find the the second kind more repugnant and much more dangerous.

Money as an end to power is a well documented phenomenom. Read the biographies of many very wealthy people and you will see that for them, money is more than just something you buy stuff with, but a way of keeping score. Government does also attract people interested in public service.

>(2) A government can do much nastier things to you than a corporation can. The absolute worse thing that a corporation can do is sue you into bankrupcy. A government, OTOH, can put you in jail, confiscate your property and do other most unpleasant things.

People living downwind of the United Carbide Plant in Bhopal might disagree. Or those on board that ValueJet crash. Or the strikers who were killed during anti-union riots in the US. Or the poor bastard living in the Nigerean deltas being screwed over by big oil. Or the people screwed by big tobacco who lied when they knew smoking was a)addictive and b) killed. Or - well you get the point.

>(3) If I dislike a corporation, I can more or less ignore it: not use its services and products, turn away from it's advertising, etc. Now a government is much, much harder to ignore.

In a lot of countries, whose economies are weaker than large corporations that's not true. Even in the First World, it's very difficult for me to ignore, say, car manafacturers, even though I don't own a car.

get away from the computer a bit...

[delmoi]

As an aside, what the f*ck is social justice? Similarly, what the f*ck is economic justice? AFAICT, the answer to these questions are always defined by the user's (usually self-serving) point of view.

Uh... the user? what exactly would they be using :P

Re:libertarianism does not = anarchism

[0xdeadbeef]

And for the same reason, libertarians are now increasingly wary of aggregating corporate power.

Amusing, since anarchists have been wary of corporate power going all the way back to the time that they were mercantilist extensions of the state.

Re:libertarianism does not = anarchism

[cian]

The right side emphacizes personal fiscal responsibility and collective moral responsibility.

So their propoganda would have you believe. Funny how they're more than happy to use government to back their personal moral beliefs/to enrich their interests.

As for the left? You are joking, right?

Re:libertarianism does not = anarchism

[cian]

Anarchism says, "Fsck the army.
Yeah they were famous for it in Spain. Gee, could you be more uninformed...

Re:libertarianism does not = anarchism

[cian]

Yes, but no. Some strands of it are amazingly pragmatic (the earliest, and best critiques of fascism and communism were from anarchists). Trouble is that it requires people to be a lot more intelligent and responsible than most probably want to be/are.

But, yeah, libertarianism is for rich geeks who don't want to grow up.

Cian

Re:Go Read Hayek or David Friedman already

[cian]

They all seem to be armed my way, but may be that's just my manor...

Cian

Re:Go Read Hayek or David Friedman already

[cian]

In Britain? Are you mad?
Not that I've been sure how a gun would protect me from a psyched up Yardie, but that's another story...

Cian

A Curious Lack of Reasoning

[The Welcome Rain]

I am surprised that the article did not go into why the various luminaries it quotes said what they did. Indeed, there was suspiciously little context provided with a great many of the quotes; I will look into them later to see whether anything important was omitted.

Without that sort of supporting justification, however, I can't see the point of the article. Arguments from authority are the weakest, and I suspect that the authorities in question were subjected to some serious authorial overinterpretation.

--

Re:Closing the Circle

[tommyk]

Is exactly what the article is talking about. The point was not so much that some of the preported "leaders" (if anarchists can have such things) have had to change the way they think about the way in which the world may or may not work, but that the same leaders have now retruned to the point from which they first departed.

What anarchists are you talking about?

Tim Berners Lee? Neal Stephenson? Oh, please.

IMHO, these people haven't changed their fundamental opinions, that power belongs in the hands of individuals and not sacred cow institutions. I have never heard any of these folks advocate any form of anarchy. If you have stuff to back this up, post away

Questioning the role of governments and institutions is not anarchism, unless you are in stalinist russia...

I feel pretty confident that these people never felt that technology was going to solve all the worlds problems, but rather they felt strongly that individuals should not be denied any of the potential strengths that technology ( read ideas ) could provide them...if even that, I can't speak for them, although I have never read a word that would lead me to call them 'anarchists'.

Advocating a position of not using a DENY_ALL model for new technology, like the FBI and now the RIAA are doing is not anarchy. Saying that power over individual expression is not anyone's unless you can prove it is hurting a third party somehow ( trampling on their rights, not just annoying them ), is not the same as believing all governments are evil.

Believing that the government(s) have a specific role in regulating "the world" and that they must step up to that role is not in contradiction with the belief that government(s) have a specific role in regulating "the world" and should not step out of that, either.

I guess to me your post sounded like it was almost fustrated with the whole idea privacy through technology, and I frankly don't understand that. I mean, at some level if you don't have some limited understanding of technology, there will never be any privacy, no matter what the government says. So too, if the government isn't there, almost no matter how much you know, your privacy will vanish.

There's no contradiction, these are two modes of defense. Technology is the locked door of your home, good legislation is the policeman walking the beat. By extension, technology only in the hands of the state is a skeleton key to everyone's door, or no door, and bad legislation is the police storming your house and busting down your door because of something your neighbor thought you once said about the ( insert_your_leader's_name_here ).

We have to have both.

Government is still the enemy.

[Russ Nelson]

Notice that Pinkerton's is creating WAVE because they accepted a contract from a socialist organization: the North Carolina public school system.

Yes, corporations have a lot of power. However, that power is delegated by individuals, who are free to take BACK that power. Just stop buying from that corporation. Try taking back your vote. Voted for Clinton? Oops. Try not paying your school taxes. Oops.

Government is still the enemy.
-russ

Re:Government is still the enemy.

[Russ Nelson]

First of all, corn-based gasoline is only cheaper because corn is subsidized. Second of all, where do you think the fertilizer for all that corn comes from? Um-hum, fossil fuels.

Third, well, as a secondary effect, you *do* endorse and support Bill Gates. You are not required to go to college, and you can refuse to do your assignments in MS Access and Visual Basic. You could use gnumeric and Python. Obviously this would be difficult. Nobody ever said that freedom was free.
-russ

Re:Government is still the enemy.

[GrouchoMarx]

Fact 1: I disagree with burning of fossil fuels for energy when corn-based gasoline is cheaper and cleaner.

Fact 2: There are no corn gas stations within 1000 miles of where I live, nor are there any places that sell corn gas cars.

Result: I drive a car powered by regular unleaded, because I have no choice in the matter.

So, you say that since I drive a car powered by oil, that I LIKE and ENCOURAGE the use of fossil fuels? Sorry, but no. "Voting with your dollars" is one of those myths parents tell their children when they want them to grow up to be stock brokers, right up there with "corporate mentality" and "Microsoft works."

For the record, my computer is dual boot Linux and Win98SE, because I am a college student and am REQUIRED to do assignments in MS Access and in Visual Basic. So, since I have Windows and Access and VB6 on my computer, that means I like and endorse and support Bill Gates, right? Don't say that to my face.

--GrouchoMarx

Re:Librarians and libertarians

[Russ Nelson]

Problem: the government caused the great depression by deflating the currency. Oops. So much for the idea of a strong central government. go read the anti-federalist papers. Their predictions have come true.

Problem: the conditions that led to the labor movement were basically a vulnerability of capital to extortion. The power of labor has declined in recent years as capital has become more mobile.
-russ

How do the powerless get the gov't to protect 'em?

[Russ Nelson]

You presume that the purpose of the government is to protect the powerless from the predations of the powerful. How does this happen? What mechanism is there to create political power from nothing?

What you need to acknowledge is that the powerless are powerless in BOTH the market and the government. All that the government can do is make the situation worse by using force.
-russ
p.s. he means David D. Friedman.

So what's next?

[Dreamweaver]

Now that advertisers and corporations have taken over the 'net and are progressively turning it into a bad commercial, the government has decided it's time to step in and stop all this free speech, and you can't turn around without some gap-shopper chained to the nearest bandwagon talking about AOL in butchered tech-jargon.. what do we do now? It's time for us geeks to band together and come up with something new to sweep the world with, while giving us another decade or so of confusing the norms before they jump on it.

(Oh, and if any of you say linux, OSS, or something along the lines of "Down with the mpaa!" i swear i'll hunt you down and kick you in the head..)
Dreamweaver

Closing the Circle

[H3lldr0p]

Is exactly what the article is talking about. The point was not so much that some of the preported "leaders" (if anarchists can have such things) have had to change the way they think about the way in which the world may or may not work, but that the same leaders have now retruned to the point from which they first departed.

The article, well written IMHO in its neutrality, still has a sense of amazement that people can, and do, change their opinions and positions upon the subjects that are near and dear to them. I, for one, am not as amazed, but happily musing about what we will hear next from both the media-at-large (which will not pass up this chance to do what damage they can to any and all causes that they feel the techno-community fights for). People change, the world around us changes, and we can do well in learning to accept this and make it work for us. Which is exactly what is going on.

Now, to make this a bit more relevant, let us begin to discuss how this effects us. We have known for some time that technology, for all of its wonderful and life-giving uses, cannot and will not, save society unless society chooses to allow this to happen. Before the attempt was made to show that privacy was what was wrong. Not enough, that is to say. However, privacy in the form that was invisioned could not ever exist again, if indeed ever existed at all. So what was left? To build a new privacy? That's all fine and good, but what if people cannot understand how to make that kind of privacy to work? The tax forms, the medical records, etc already exist.

No, privacy, even through encryption will not solve the problem. We have to admit the fight starts a lot closer to home. To save what we have (if it worth saving indeed) we have to start the fight were it counts. We have to start changing ourselves. We have to admit to us that we are the problem. That is what was being said by the speakers at the conference. As much as technology may be the means to the salvation, the salvation, the change, will never come if we do not ourselves change along with it.

Re:The Death of Privacy and the Birth of New Freed

[Steve B]

What if there were no crypto? What if all of our data could be accessed by anyone else with reasonable hacking skill?

The latter question does not follow from "What if there were no crypto?". It does follow from "What if air were not an insulator?"

If there were no other form of data security, secrecy would be available only to those who could afford to either keep them on dedicated and isolated computers or to have sensitive data processed manually by utterly trusted/cowed agents.
/.

Libertarian Society

[Steve B]

The author does not address libertarianism, but rather the common straw-man version of libertarianism. Admittedly, a disproportionate amount of libertarian evangelism comes from the rebellious teen-agers and Randroids who espouse the latter, so it's an understandable mistake.

Libertarianism does not reject social structures; quite the contrary. Individuals are left free to participate in various social institutions to a greater and lesser degree, and experience the benefits and drawbacks of these choices. It permits lone-wolfism as one of a range of personal lifestyle choices, but does not insist upon it. Most people inclined to lone-wolfism are libertarians (because other political doctrines regard them as bad citizens, or worse), but this does not mean that most libertarians are inclined to lone-wolfism.
/.

Moderate this UP!!!

[Dr.Evil]

I never thought I'd post a junk message like this, but gilroy hits it right on the head: capitalism (or corporatism, pick your term) as a system is inherently undemocratic and opposed to freedom and liberty!

Re:Go Read Hayek or David Friedman already

[Mr. Slippery]

[BTW, before anyone gets me wrong and also IM(NS)HO, the right to own assault rifles, grenade launchers, semi-automatic pistols etc does not come under the heading of "fundamental human rights". Certainly not round here, anyway.]

Perhaps not. But they are the means by which basic human rights are secured. Restricting their possession to a groups that has, in the past, shown the human rights are not their top concern, does not strike me as wise.

Re:Laws, Rules, and Regulations

[Mr. Slippery]

Am I the only person who sees a major difference between a "community of trust" and "laws, rules, [and] regulations"?

No, I see it too. In fact, I see it's technical reflection in Zimmerman's software: contrast PGP's "web of trust" with attempts at a centralized, possibly state-backed, PKI.

Re:Go Read Hayek or David Friedman already

[Mr. Slippery]

As for guns, "assault rifle" is pretty much a meaningless term...

"Assault rifle" is a well-defined term; it's a rifle that used intermediate-size ammunition and can be set for automatic (one trigger pull=multiple shots) or semi-automatic (one trigger pull=one shot + reload and cock for next shot) operation. The classic examples are the AK-47 (the real deal, not "civilian" models) and the M16; in the U.S. these guns are generally available only to the military and police.

"Assault weapon" is a term with no real technical meaning - basically, it's whatever gun a legislator doesn't like the look of.

Good Ideas

[B. Samedi]

Basically these are good ideas. It's true that encryption by itself won't keep you safe from a repressive government or evil corporations. The idea that you need friends and people that you can trust is a excellent way to help set up a society. Let's face it. Man is a social animal. We need to be around people. Putting our trust in a software solution to a social problem will not work (which is what this essentially boils down to). You need to trust people or encryption is worthless.

Let's see where this leads and hope that the United States follows Canada's lead and implements some real privacy laws.

Re:libertarianism does not = anarchism

[Hard_Code]

Those damn info-mongering librarians never let me get more than seven books out for more than six months. The bastards. I would check out How To Start a Militia if I weren't over my book limit.

Re:Unions!

[ronfar]

I think the carpal tunnel syndrome thing is a real issue, or maybe I've just read to many of SoreHands' posts. The other thing I'm worried about is the way the phrase "computer labor shortage" is used a lot. For example, I think the real reason why we hear business leaders talking shortage is because they want to increase the amount of computer technology labor to the point where they are more in control. They seriously hate having a labor shortage (if that's really what there is, I'm not convinced there is a real shortage. I think labor is just not as cheap as they want it to be.) and are working hard to get a labor surplus. I mean, I have close friends who will benefit if more H-1B visas are granted, but there was also a manager at my company who wanted to hire non-citizens because she felt she could pay them less and basically exploit them more (a plus to this is that that manager no longer works at my company... but she landed on her feet and is managing somewhere else).

Of course, I think being a worker in the computer field isn't percieved as a blue collar job right now because of the potential to make big money. However, it is a blue collar, working class type of job (it is just skilled labor as opposed to unskilled) and will eventually be treated as such by company owners. Organizing now would be creating a union from a position of strength, as opposed to waiting until we are forced into it. I should note that working on forming strong, close bonds with my co-workers outside of work has helped all of us benefit at the place I currently work. Of course, we are a very small group (at the company), and new people are being added all the time. I'd really love to organize a union... I just don't want to use that word in front of management.

Article author is biased...

[ronfar]

Ok, as a Libertarian (which is to say a dues paying, card carrying, voting party member) I found the authors article to be both biased and patronizing. One of the biases, and this one shows up over and over again, is that Libertarians believe in unfettered, uncontrolled, rampant and evil capitalism. No Libertarian would ever support a corporation that took away an individuals right to life, liberty or property. Some Libertarians (unfortunately, in my view) make the error of thinking that corporations can't be responsible for violating a persons constitutional rights... I disagree with this notion which is why I consider myself Left-Libertarian as opposed to Right-Libertarian. This bias shows up on the Democratic Party (Socialist outside the US) agenda again and again. Basically, the socialists believe that strong government controls on business and private property are the only things that can improve life for everyone. I say that without strong, legally enforcable individual rights you just trade the tyranny of the corporation for the tyranny of government. For example, government owned businesses are much more likely to get away with environmental pollution then privately owned ones.

He sees the librarians as "good government." The librarians sure did deserve that award, but that's because as a class they were helpful in resisting bad, intrusive government! If this were a "big government is better award" then the award should go to the AFA! They were the ones who wanted to use the government to "protect the children," the librarians wanted to stop them! (Oh... and since my Mom is a library clerk, I don't particularly care for the patronizing attitude toward librarians as "All those invisible, dedicated civil servants." Ah! The little people, what would the elite do with out them, he seems to say.)

The article was patronizing because it says, "ah! at last the Libertarian geeks are growing up and becoming democrats." I don't blindly follow my Salon appointed leaders, thank you very much. While I think some of the things these people have been saying lately are unfortunate, I haven't read of a big endorsement for CDA, the V-chip, the Clipper chip, or all the bad, government imposed technology that make geeks tend toward libertarianism. Also, collective barganing, is not part of big government! I believe strongly in unions, and I know that unions do not become popular with government-types until after they get power on their own.

On the whole, I thought it was a lousy article. I do how ever agree that computer technology workers should start unionizing, now. Because right now we're scarce and we have the power of a scarce, skilled trade. Eventually, though, this may change, and we'll find ourselves working the same long hours... but for considerably decreased pay and benefits.

Re:Article author is biased...

[np-complete]

This bias shows up on the Democratic Party (Socialist outside the US)

Sorry, I'm still giggling at the idea that you can possibly consider the US Democratic Party as being isomorphic to socialist...

Socialism does not require strong laws on private property, it prefers to state very clearly what is public property, and acts to restrict the monopolisation or restricted use of resources. power tends to follow resources, and especially capital (which is essentially an abstraction on resources) and if you think that you can prevent the centralisation of power in corporations and big business without strong laws, you're mistaken. The trick is to put in place a minimal mechanism which acts to prevent the centralisation of power, but doesn't impinge excessively on individual liberties.

It seems my liberal-left is a shade redder than your left libertarian, but I think you'll agree that the decentralisation (and maintaining of decentralisation) of power is an important step to precluding its abuse. The trick would seem to be finding the balance between the need to minimise control, and the need to prevent a new source of control appearing in its place. It seems I just draw the line further left than you do, but I would point out to you that wage slavery is as powerful a form of control as any other.

With regard to unionisation of tech workers, I agree fully; however, the tech industry calls for a different type of union than the labour unions... where pay and conditions were the main bone of contention, in IT, the battles tend to be more to do with things such as Intellectual Property clauses in contracts, working hours (it's one thing to work late because you want to finish off debugging or writing a piece of code... another thing entirely if that's expected of you...), etc. This is the kind of place where group action is needed, but because pay is generally good, there hasn't yet been the motivation to unionise.
NP

Re:Article author is biased...

[GossG]

Ok, as a Libertarian (which is to say a dues paying, card carrying, voting party member)

I find something disturbing about libertarians who require registration and party cards...

Re:Still about protecting rights...

[quonsar]

The GOVERNMENT used to require Social Security numbers when you got a job, now they require every child six months and older to have one for "tax purposes". A seven-month old needs to pay taxes? Since when?

You obviously are too young and inexperienced to have actually dealt with having kids and paying taxes. In order to circumvent all the double claiming and invented children people were listing on thier tax forms (there is a 'tax benefit' in having children to support)the IRS now requires a social security number to be listed for every child over 6 months which you claimed as a dependent. Under six months doesn't matter, since you cannot claim ANYBODY as a dependent unless you have supported them for at least 6 months.

A fine line, admittedly, but there is no requirement to have the social security number for anything other than the above stated 'tax purposes'. Not getting one for the child is a choice you can make, but this choice ensures that you cannot "enjoy" the "tax benefit" of claiming the child as a dependent.

======
"Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16

Re:libertarianism = wishful thinking

[sparty]

Two points:

1. Almost no members of any political party agree 100% with the party on every issue. Though I recognize I'm confusing big "L" and little "l" libertarians when I refer to political parties in the context of libertarians, I just want to point out that supporting a party does not necessarily mean supporting the entire platform.

2. I recognize that crack cocaine is a Bad Thing. I recognize that there are other habits that are unhealthy that people might enjoy. Guess what? I think that's their perogative as much as it is for Joe (or Jill) Schmoe to go to the store, pick up a 12 of Labatt, go back to his house, and drink it in the privacy of his home. As long as he isn't pulling the fire alarm in my dorm or driving, that is his right. If he'd rather go buy coke and snort or smoke it as appropriate for the form, the same deal stands. His perogative.

Are there aspects of government regulation that I see as benfeciary that a libertarian solution would eliminate? Yes. However, I think that the government is a crude instrument, and using it to bludgeon society to fit the way it "should be" is a messy and ineffecient way of doing things in the best case--more often, it just doesn't work.

Ellen Ullman: Salon's tech writer with 'Tude

[gad_zuki!]

Geez, somehow she never learned that reporters should try to shed their own prejudices, the difference between criticism and openly mocking, and libertarianism does not equal anarchy.

Then again it wouldn't be Salon without the attitude. Feel free to tell her what you think at
ullman@wenet.net.

Just for the record..

[Inoshiro]

These people did not say that encryption should be regulated. They said trust should be enforced by social structures. And they're right, it should be. However, because our knowledge tools are outstripping out evolved control mechanisms, we find situations were encryption makes sense every day.

You don't worry about people bursting in on your room, because it's private. That's where privacy is enforced by the social structure -- people all value it, and so all avoid compromising others' privacy. But large groupings of people, such as New York, stretch the control mechanisms. True, people avoid eye contact, physical contact, etc, as much as possible, there are conflicts that occur. Worse, when you mix in a government which has also scaled past its original goals into other areas, you once again lose more privacy.

Their comments are interesting from a sociological stand point. I'm glad someone was willing to speak about why encryption exists, and how we can make it so we don't need it. The answer is trust.
---

Re:Hype

[dpk]

I dont think the point is that the cypherpunks have stopped believing that Big Brother is looming, but rather that a better way to combat 'Big Brother' is to understand the political and social power of circles of trust. Much like The Matrix... the agents are always looming, but learning to think and act like an agent is sometimes the most powerful tool for combat.

dpk

Good reporting format

[Zagato-sama]

I'd like to make an offtopic note- This is _exactly_ how news should be displayed on Slashdot, without the coloring of editorialism by the submitter. Show the article, let the readers make up their own minds without a set biased viewpoint shoved in their faces prior to it.

Re:Good reporting format

[gilroy]

Quoth the poster:

Show the article, let the readers make up their own minds without a set biased viewpoint shoved in their faces prior to it.

I don't see a problem with the intros. I fancy myself a clever enough reader to assay the submitter's bias and to filter it. I always end up reading straight from the source anyway. On the other hand, I think it's fair for the submitter to have a first say in which direction the discussion will go. If most people disagree, then it won't go that way.

Fundamentally, and for apparently no good reason, I believe in trusting the general intelligence of the readers. If they can't separate the opinion from the story on their own, then heck, we can't save 'em anyway.

A democracy absolutely requires an educated, intelligient, engaged citizenry. If we can't meet those criteria, the patient is too far gone for any patching to help.

Re:Go Read Hayek or David Friedman already

[JonK]

Do you mean David Friedman or Milton Friedman?

Ignoring that, Hayek's viewpoint on the relationship between the state, private enterprise and the individual was (paraphrasing The Road To Serfdom somewhat) that the state could, by its actions, only harm individuals since it impeded their freedoms to act: private enterprise, driven by consumer demand, would and should take over many of the roles of the state since it could provide for the individual without restricting his choice.

To which I (and others) can only say: "Up to a point, Lord Copper".

While there is a valid argument against a collectivised and centrally controlled market, there's an equally valid argument against a completely laissez-faire neo-liberal market. At some point, the state must intercede in order to protect the powerless from the powerful (this is, after all, the fundamental reason behind all law). Read Leviathan (Hobbes) which is still, three hundred years later, one of the best explorations of what has been more recently called the social contract.

A true laissez-faire attitude would be to allow any corporation to data-mine the individual such as yourself to within an inch of his or her life: after all, why shouldn't they? While they are richer and more powerful than you, they are just looking after their own interests. The fundamental role of the state, as prescribed in statute, is surely to mediate in this relationship and protect the individual.

In general, laws, and hence the social structures they underpin, do evolve organically: certainly in the UK, laws are created or amended on a daily basis. Furthermore, once they leave Parliament, they're refined in courts across the country: British law is a heady mixture of statute and precedents.

Furthermore, since we exist in an environment where the state and (large) private enterprise often seem worryingly (to me at least) interchangeable in their viewpoints and aims, there is a pragmatic case to be made for cheering each and every piece of legislation which is aimed at protecting the fundamental human rights of individuals: IM(NS)HO, privacy is one of those rights.

[BTW, before anyone gets me wrong and also IM(NS)HO, the right to own assault rifles, grenade launchers, semi-automatic pistols etc does not come under the heading of "fundamental human rights". Certainly not round here, anyway.]
--
Cheers

Re:Go Read Hayek or David Friedman already

[JonK]

In which case we're largely agreed on principle (if not on scope...): there are, however, certain of the more wild-eyed neo-liberals who one finds running about brandishing their copy of the Wealth of Nations who seem to believe that since by increasing the wealth of the nation you are increasing the wealth of its citiziens anything which hinders that wealth increase is a Bad Thing and should be done away with. Concepts such as uneven distribution bounce off them - when questioned they reply by chanting the discredited mantra "trickledown, trickledown"

Oh, and since our dibble don't (for the most part) carry anything stronger than a stout stick I've never felt the urge to carry a PPK...
--
Cheers

Did anyone find that article to be hype?

[dwalsh]

It reads an awful lot into things, and views everything from a ridiculously skewed bias, with the speakers presented as weirdos who are suddenly discovering the existance of society.

Not much of a change

[randombit]

"Libertarians are used to fighting the government," he [Tim Berners-Lee] says, "and not corporations ..."

That's because for a long time governments had the majority of power. Now that big corps can buy any law they want, they are the ones with the power. I don't see any big contradition in the change in focus. Personally, I'm not against govt or business, but I don't like that a small group of people (who are running the show) being able to threaten and bully others to get what they want.

Re:Not much of a change

[Keelor]

Admittedly, corporations have a significant impact on governmental decisions. I'd have to be a complete fool to disagree with that. However, governments still listen to people--and corporations listen to people, also (think of DoubleClick). Jessica Litman gave an interesting speech at one of the lunches at the conference about "The Demonization of Piracy." One interesting point she made was that some of the blame for recent court rulings fall to some of the very people that populate these boards. For example, calling legitamite, unauthorized copying "pirating" condemns someone before they've even had a chance to make their case (it's not "pirating" to copy one of your own CDs to MP3 format for your own use). Also, she mentioned that about the only evidence used to convince the judge in the DeCSS case that the software would be used for pirating were quotes from /. posts.

Not to condemn everyone, but just remember that it's easy to fall into the trap of blaiming everything that goes wrong on the corpocracy.

~=Keelor

Laws, Rules, and Regulations

[Quintin Stone]

• It's clear Zimmermann has "gotten" the speech. He doesn't go so far as to endorse anything like "social structures," communities of trust, neighborhoods of understanding -- no, of course not. Zimmermann has been staunchly against laws, rules, regulations: anything that could be considered a form of social coercion.

Am I the only person who sees a major difference between a "community of trust" and "laws, rules, [and] regulations"?

All the laws in the world do no good unless the citizens involved actually start to collectively give a damn. The most obvious example of this is when neighbors get fed up with crime and decide to, as a community, "clean up" the neighborhood. Unless you get the residents to take an active part in reform, nothing will change. Doesn't matter how many laws you pass because they don't, they can't address the fundamental problems.

It's like they say, "I can't help you unless you want to be helped." Until the majority of people come together and eliminate their collective apathy, things just don't get better. Laws don't cure society. Society cures society.

Re:Buzzword Bingo in 5 seconds

[Eruantalon]

I was thinking about that myself. I had to wade through all that buzzword bullshit just to gain a slight understanding of what in the hell the author was talking about. I'm still pretty confused as to what exactly was the reason for writing the article. It seemed to say that the Internet and computers as we know them are going to be destroyed just because a few of the "fathers" have changed political views. Did they even change their political views anyways? It seems more to me that they figured out a new angle on how to get what they want. But I could easily be wrong - the article did not much but confuse the hell outta me.

Eruantalon

security through technology

[renard]

What is this idea that we can dispense with cryptography and other security technologies (most often, yes, developed by lone-genius types) now that we as citizens have identified corporations as the more powerful threat?

How does Neal Stephenson think we will manage to establish even the first links of trust in our larger social communities without code we can see, that we know can do the job of protecting our data and validating our identity?

How does Whitfield Diffie think that lone programmers will protect themselves against exploitive corporations, in that vital interim before the union can come to their aid, except by using the tools that he has provided us with?

Why does Tim Berners-Lee agonize about pursuing government regulation of industry, if that is the best way to preserve a Web for all of us to freely use and enjoy?

Most of all, why does Ellen Ullman have such a chip on her shoulder about libertarians? I've never seen so many poisoned darts shot at this relatively public-minded crowd.

Re:Of coures libertarians fight corporations

[briancarnell]

How do libertarians benefit from fighting corporate welfare? If selfishness was all that mattered, the CATO Institute would go get nice big grants from Archer Daniels Midland and change its tune about corporate welfare.

Libertarianism is most definitely about "selfishness," whatever that means.

Re:Go Read Hayek or David Friedman already

[briancarnell]

Jon,

In The Constitution of Liberty, Hayek posits a generally laissez-faire state taking actions to correct the sort of problems you mention, though minimal action (for example, Hayek in that book supports a minimal welfare system).

I'm with you on privacy, though I don't quite understand your argument. Even in a very laissez faire system, some external body is needed to define and enforce property rights. It's already a well-established principle of law that I have property rights in my reputation; I can sue those who libel me and damage my reputation. Privacy should be treated the same way -- I have a property right in my privacy just like my reputation. If somebody is collecting and organizing data about me without my permission, I have serious problems with that, regardless of whether that entity is a corporation or a government.

As for guns, "assault rifle" is pretty much a meaningless term, grenade launchers I have no problem with being outlawed (though they should also be outlawed for military and police use), but I'm all for semi-automatic pistols. Self-defense is a fundamental human right.

I'd agree with a basic (and very non-libertarian) reciprocity principle on this -- I'll give up my semiautomatic pistols if the police will give up theirs.

Of coures libertarians fight corporations

[briancarnell]

It is nonsense to suggest that libertarians don't fight against corporations. Libertarians fight against corporations when they overstep the bounds of free association. The libertarian CATO Institute, for example, has been one of the most consistent opponents of all forms of corporate welfare (which is inherently anti-libertarian and just plain wrong).

What libertarians don't oppose is corporations doing what they do when they're not overstepping the bounds of free association, so you won't see us protesting against free trade for example.

It was interesting that the article mentioned inviting unions -- hmmm..the same unions who are anti-immigration know nothings? No thank you.

Go Read Hayek or David Friedman already

[briancarnell]

The problem with the Salon article is that it opposes libertarianism with social structures, but the whole point of libertarianism is to allow social structures to evolve without excessive government interference.

I don't even think that the privacy laws that are being written are necessarily anti-libertarian (since I certainly have a property interest in my privacy).

The issue is do you want the government dictating those social structures -- and that means weak crypto and the SEC, FBI and NSA spying on the Internet -- or do we want to allow those social structures to evolve organically.

I'll take the latter any day of the week.

Re:Go Read Hayek or David Friedman already

[grarg]

The problem, as I see it, of letting stuff evolve organically is that people and society tend to fuck it up. Unfortunately, people will always be greedy, selfish and jealous and (dons flame-suit) the more freedom you give to a large group, the more likely some of them are to abuse it. By the same definition, any freely elected government will freely take any handouts freely offered by big corporation whose interests in personal liberty are minimal and who, by dint of their size, then freely influence the poor, innocent govt. officials to curtail our liberty.

What Stephenson, Berners-Lee et al were all gravitating towards is an idea of a society (and a government is really only a reflection/secondary element/spin-off of its society), where there is a strong enough feeling of trust and social responsibility awareness of the importance personal liberty that nobody has to fight to keep some of their stuff private; encryption will be as inalienable a right as free speech (which would also slightly less alienable than it currently is ;-) ).

Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, this utopian ideal has a snowball's chance in hell of actually happening. Ah well. Bless the lads for trying anyway.

Re:Go Read Hayek or David Friedman already

[mushroom]

What do you mean by social structures evolving organically? There have been "governments" at least since there has been writing, and I dare say human beings are better off than they were 6,000 years ago. I guess societies that are pretty loosely organized, such as "Big Man" societies might be your ideal libertarian, societies, but then again, they haven't "evolved" much at all. If anything, what human history shows about government is that in the absence of it, social structures, rather than developing "organically," tend to move about quickly as the Ross Ice Shelf, if at all. Governments are part and parcel of human cultural development, rather than an impediment(though they can be, the former Soviet Union being a prime example). I don't think we should take the knee-jerk position that government interference must always be minimal. After all, Texas has minimal government interference, and it's a backwater.

Re:Go Read Hayek or David Friedman already

[streetlawyer]

...): there are, however, certain of the more wild-eyed neo-liberals who one finds running about brandishing their copy of the Wealth of Nations

I'm sure you're aware, but others might not be, that Smith's "Wealth of Nations" is not a libertarian tract and actually has a quite sophisticated analysis of the need for regulation of big business in the public interest.

In fact, the context of the "Invisible Hand" passage makes it quite clear that Smith is referring to capitalist production by small, local producers, who consider themselves members of a community of interest. Applying it to multinational corporations is as bad a violence to Smith's theory as that suffered by some of Marx's

Innuendo

[ariux]

Ms. Ullman devotes a tremendous amount of space in her article to criticizing others' points of view (as well as surveying irrelevancies like people's clothing and haircuts) but never really articulates her own. She tears down the ideas of others without proposing any to take their place. I'm willing to listen; but Ms. Ullman should speak her mind directly. You reading this, ma'am? Tell me: how should the social problems and issues introduced with the mainstreaming of the Internet be solved?

Second opinion

[Keelor]

I attended this year's CFP, and I think that the author of the Salon article severly understated the level of conviction that regulation is going to happen. Putting the computer people aside (who aren't always entirely realistic, sorry), the lawyers, politicians, and every other group represented seemed quite convinced that regulation is coming, whether they liked it or not.

Most of them seemed to like it, however. Even the "geeks" realize that they no longer control the Internet--self-regulation is great when _you_ are doing the regulating, but once you have to rely on a corporation to do it, self-regulation takes on a whole new aura.

Not to say that the "traditional" opinion wasn't espoused. It wasn't nearly as prevalent as I had expected, though.

~=Keelor

Librarians and libertarians

[Anonymous Codger]

The librarian culture is very strong on issues of privacy and free availability of information, very much like the hacker/geek culture. The importance of privacy and of free information access is drummed into them throughout their MLS programs, and librarians are often at the forefront in resisting restrictions on information availability.

As for libertarians, they will grow out of it just as young communists of the thirties, forties and fifties grew out of it as they saw how impractical their ideology was. There are two lessons we should have learned from the past 150 years: (1) Communism doesn't work (witness the former Soviet Union); (2) Capitalism doesn't work (witness the Great Depression and the conditions that led to the rise of the labor movement). What works is a balanced system with characteristics of both, driven by capitalist greed but regulated by a strong, central, and democratic government. Most of the 20th century was spent in trying to find the right balance of the two, and this struggle continues into the 21st century.

Government or Corporations?

[guran]

Real problems start when governments and companies use each other as proxy.

• A company wants to mine on Indian land? They don't want to do business? Go through the government! They can fix a law if you pay them!
• A company wants to keep competitors off? Get the government to make stronger patent and trade mark laws
• A government agency wants to do something unconstitutional? Form a company. They are just bound by regular laws.
• The govenment wants to censor the net? First amendment in the way? Make sure that the companies does it for you!
• The government wants to track anti-social people. Unconstitutional? Buy the data from a company

There is one fundamental difference btw a democratic government and a corporation: Elections. Perhaps far from perfect, but existing.

Voting with your money? Yeah right! Your vote *is* bigger than your wallet.
How large share of the population in your country are you? Tiny. How large share of a major corporations revenue do you represent? Even less. Do the math. Go figure.

List for me the liberties "evil corporations" have taken from you

• The right to life
• The right to education
• The right to peaceful assembly
• The freedom of speech
• Etc

Not from me, not from you, but from someone, somewhere.

The US government has a (somewhat) level playing field with the corps. Do you think that is the case in smaller countries?

Wars "forgotten" by CNN are fought in the third world. Officially between two nations, or btw the government and a rebel force. In reality they are fought between two (often both US) companies for oil and mining rights.

Re:Epiphany a'la technology

[311Stylee]

LOL!

i agree.. when i get a minute i'll finish it off =]

Epiphany a'la technology

[311Stylee]

Well, here we are again, facing zealots. There is something a bit different about these zealots:

1. They are very smart 2. They suddenly changed their minds

As every programmer knows, there are always many ways to solve a problem, whether it be how to get your characters formatted correctly, or something much more complex, say AI. When you take a stance on something and unequivically argue its truth, you risk throwing out all the other answers. This can't be right, especially when working within the confines of an extremely complex system; you can't just use a catch-all and hold to it.

Some of the greatest minds on earth have labored on how to create an ideal system for people. A lot of them have failed, some of them pretty badly. There are several reasons for this:

A small group of people has the smallest number of irreconcileable differences. Their "response range" to life is somewhat limited, therefore it is easier to create a ruleset to keep everyone happy, because there are fewer alternatives to consider.

The larger the group of people gets, the more responses the group can have [if this isn't clear, here is an example: 5 people can wear 5 shirts, 10 people can wear 10 shirts, the more people, the more shirts can be worn simultaneously]. Therefore it is harder to create a ruleset that will make them all happy. This leads to compromise, where most people are mostly happy. Obviously, that is not ideal.

So, their solution is to extend the trusted system by using governmental policies? Let's use the model i just explained to translate the expansion of the "trusted system": In order to extend your trusted system, you must get everyone to agree with each other, otherwise, you get people murdering you, robbing your bank, etc. But they aren't talking about crime that has some historical/legal/moral/logical precident, they are talking about legislating trust. That, my friends, is facism. Hilter didn't trust the jews. YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE TRUST. Under any system, diversity of thought is a nessesary requirement; without it, you are hiding yourself from the world; pulling the wool over your own eyes.

damn.. i have to go to class.. i wasn't quite done =]

Re:libertarianism does not = anarchism

[mesterha]

>Libertarians know that there is an appropriate role for government,
>but that its role should be minimized to prevent an unhealthy
>accumulation of power in one corruptible institution.

I believe the standard Libertarian rational is that markets solve
social problems better than governments.

>For the same reason, libertarians often oppose organized religion. And
>for the same reason, libertarians are now increasingly wary of
>aggregating corporate power.

Just because someone claiming to be a libertarian makes the above
claims does not make them Libertarian claims. In fact, the above
ideas seem completely against any consistent Libertarian policy. How
can a libertarian oppose organized religion. If these people don't
interfere with your rights how can you oppose their religion. How can
a libertarian complain against a corporation. As long as the
corporations don't trample anyone's rights, who should stop them from
growing large and powerful. (These are rights as defined by a
libertarian. If you sign a exploitative contract with a corporation
this isn't a rights violation. You chose to sign the contract.)

Ironically these points you make about organized religion and
corporations are more in line with the anarchists fear of hierarchical
organizations. It seems you are confusing libertarianism with
anarchism. (Unless your not refering to the modern Libertarian
party.)

In truth, I think the points you make are true if misattributed. A
society should have a system of checks and balances to stop any
individual or group from attaining too much power. Unfortunately this
goes against the existing Libertarian position which is part of the
conflict the Salon article was trying to articulate.

Chris Mesterharm

Re:libertarianism does not = anarchism

[belgin]

You've hit a nail on the head that the author didn't realize was there. The fact of the matter is that libertarians represent a spectrum, just like any other political association.

First let us define a space to think in according to current poltical spectrum as I have gathered it in the US. The right side emphacizes personal fiscal responsibility and collective moral responsibility. The upper side represents authoritism, wherein all power is centralized. The left side emphacizes personal moral responsibility and collective fiscal responsibility. The lower side represents libertarianism or anarchism, wherein all the power is decentralized or distributed.

The Repulicans average about five steps right and two steps down from the center. The Democrats average about four steps left and three steps up from center. Fascists tend to stand about twelve to fifteen steps up and half a dozen to a dozen right. The Socialists here average about ten steps left and eight steps up from center. Libertarians average about seven steps down from center and wobble left and right. Anarchists just go down until they can't see anybody else. :) Moderates like me orbit around the center reacting to current trends. These locations fluctuate based on whom is in power, what conditions are, and how angry people are.

The author believes that because corporations are becoming the enemy, libertarians are making a long dash north and left. In actuality, it would not surprise me to see libertarians move up and left as corporations become more of a threat, but they are not going to cross the whole spectrum. Once serious campaign finance reform is done, there is a decent chance of corporations losing the ability to buy votes for a while and the groups will shift back right and south. Libertarians are just going to form against the critical mass of power wherever it happens to be. If they have to form an army to fight the current menace, they are happy with that so long as they can leave that army when the battle is over. Socialism tends to say more that the army is a good thing and lets keep it as a permanent thing. Anarchism says, "Fsck the army."

The author decided for whatever reasons that the libertarians are on the lower right (below the Republicans), which is accurate for many libertarians, but there are an equal number to the left (right under the Democrats). Libertarians have factions just like any other group and the faction with the most sway is the one whom is against the current power locus. There will still be factions that proclaim government a danger and prevent the whole from sliding too far in any given direction. It all works out.

B. Elgin

Re:libertarianism does not = anarchism

[belgin]

Anarchism says, "Fsck the army.
Yeah they were famous for it in Spain. Gee, could you be more uninformed...

As I said before, I was refering to the United States. I was also refering to the concept of Anarchism, not the supposed practice in Spain. Calling the "Anarchist" regime in Spain an example of anarchy is something of a historical joke you know... Most people would call organized Anarchy an oxymoron.

B. Elgin

Re:libertarianism does not = anarchism

[belgin]

So their propoganda would have you believe. Funny how they're more than happy to use government to back their personal moral beliefs to enrich their interests.

As I stated in my original post, I am measuring left vs. right separately from up vs. down. Right-wing people vary the spectrum from authoritism to libertarianism, just like left-wingers. As a matter of fact, what you described is exactly the same as what I described, except I did not try to make it sound negative. Are your personal biases so strong that they blind you the fact that people, no matter how strongly you disagree with them, are ... umm ... people.

As for the left? You are joking, right?

No. This is one current set of political theory. There are others too. This one seems most objective to me. I gather that you disagree with the assessment.

B. Elgin

They may be right, you know

[ruebarb]

I suppose the old model of us vs. them has gone away. Now we are dealing with two seperate and distinct entities (but like a Hollywood Power Couple, they still manage to sleep together and make each other look good)

One is the Government. Distrusted by many, Inefficient, Erratic, and dependant upon the whims of the elected parties at that time. Full of old men who know nothing of Technology, subject to the whim of lobbists and the dollar. Nevertheless, They are dependant upon US to vote them into office. I know for a fact that at least the fat cats in Washington will respond if enough people vote them out of a job. (Al Gore, defender of Tobacco - whoops - check the polls - now he turns into Al Gore, Vilifier of Tobacco)

On the other hand, Corporate America is beholden to nothing but the profit. The Jon Katz article earlier today with WAVE America is just a reinforcement. Profit rules, and rights, intellectual property, even individuality is simply a tool used to make more money. And how much say do we have over them? If we can't make it unprofitable for them to monitor, spam, sue, patent, and chuck the Internet full of corporate crap, then it won't go away. That's not speculation, that's a fact verfied by years of historical tradition.

Perhaps the solution is partially based upon the Govt. It's easier to motive Politicans to do good, in my opinion, than corporate America.

extensive strawman construction

[jejones]

Libertarians aren't hermits; they form voluntary social structures like anybody else. The author is flailing away at a caricature of libertarianism.

It's about control

[Kagato]

I think it all comes down to control. Has crypto really changed things? Int he grand scheme of things no. People still want power. The reasons for wanting power are human nature. You could talk about original sin, corruptions, hell, this thread could be the basis for a four credit collage class.

Frankly, reading the article I kept on thinking of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The part where Arthor says:
"I am your King!"
"Well I didn't vote for you!"
"You don't vote for kings."
"Well how'd you become king then?"
"The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering silmite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king!"
"Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"

Re:libertarianism does not = anarchism

[medicthree]

i'm also offended by the equation of libertarianism with anarchism. it's a total insult to anarchy. anarchy is a much more level-headed ideology than libertarianism, and has a much better chance of ever coming into being.

Big Fat Deal...

[hypergeek]

The author of the article seems to think that somehow, libertarianism and loathing of corporations are inherently at odds with one another.

But it just ain't so. Corporations are not people, despite the fact that the brain-dead fuckheads at the Supreme Court decided otherwise in 1885 (County of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad, IIRC).

The unrestricted growth of "free enterprise" can represent a greater threat to personal liberties than even the heavy hand of government.

What really irks me is when government and corporations work together to crush liberty. Under the same bullshit pretext that corporations are "persons" and that their "rights" are being violated.

As the speakers in the article mention, government is the only thing keeping corporations from becoming completely tyrannical.

If anything, corporations are even more slimy than governments, because while most governments are at least theoretically driven by the desire to make people's lives better, corporations are, by their very design, driven by an endless, insatiable hunger for profits.

What the speakers in the article are saying is that technology by itself cannot guarantee privacy, so strong laws to protect personal privacy are needed as an additional safeguard.

Think about it: when you send an encrypted message, do you encrypt it with an algorithm or key length stronger than what you suspect can be broken now, or do you encrypt it stronger than you think can be broken with the technology available 20 years from now? How about fifty?

Sooner or later, someone who intercepts your scrambled message today will be able to read it. Wouldn't it be nice to have strong legal protections ensuring that nobody invades your privacy?

What if these laws could be applied to governmental agencies, as well? I mean, how long is it until they have Really Big quantum computers, and can reconstruct your private key by peering into parallel universes?

No matter what the technology, along will come a bigger, meaner technology to crush it.

So, we do need regulations to protect our privacy as well. And that is not at odds with libertarianism, since no one has the right to infringe upon the rights of others.

And even though it is a "passive" right, privacy is still a right.

Libertarianism

[HalB]

...is not anarchism. Of course everyone has their own viewpoint for the definition of the term, so I will avoid a semantical argument. However, it is not at all contradictory to one's self-interest to engage in collective bargaining. It is also not contradictory to the individual self-interest to have the government enforce citizens' "rights from" things (as opposed to "rights to").

Fundamentally, the author of the article confuses libertarianism with anarchism, so her observations are not surprising in their surprise.

Re:Stephenson's Slant

[IO ERROR]

Most importantly, what more directly political stuff has Stephenson written?

You should check out Interface, which he wrote under the pen name Stephen Bury. As a very politically oriented book, it seems to describe Stephenson (or at least what he's thinking) well.

(I'm not posting the plot because it's been a while since I read it...I should again.)
---

Unions!

[dols]

I do how ever agree that computer technology workers should start unionizing, now.

Absolutely. I think unions could be beneficial in the following areas:

Privacy issues. ex: You telecommute. The company you are working for wants to search your computer. Shouldn't all non-work related areas of your computer be kept out of the search?

Guaranteeing working conditions. ex: Carpal tunnel syndrome.

Overtime & holiday pay. Personally, I fail to see the benefit of working long hours for someone else away from one's home besides personal satisfaction of getting the job done.

I'd like to see some more thoughts on what unions could protect and perhaps harmful aspects or if they are really necessary.

Side note: My father is in a union for steel workers and the benefits of being in the union were considerable. When the plant wanted him to work on a holiday for an urgent task, he had the option of going in and if he did, he received triple pay as a result of negotiations.

Trust

[gadge47]

The bits on cryptography reminded me of something I heard Bruce Schneier say in one of his seminars. Someone asked him when it would be that two people could have a totally secret communication.

His response was that that time was 100 years ago. 100 years ago, two people could go out in the middle of a field, look around, and be totally certain that no one was listening to the conversation.

Now, one way or another, you have to trust someone. At some point you have to rely on the workings or assertions of other people. The people that designed and coded your encryption software, the people that designed and built you communication devices, the people that swept the room for bugs, the people that verify that your friend's digital signature is legit.

Stephenson's Slant

[Skald]

I'm curious about Neal Stephenson's views.

I haven't read that much of his stuff, just Snowcrash, In the Beginning was the Command Line, and The Hacker Crackdown. I suppose because Hesse and Dostoevsky spoiled me for "lesser" prose (yes, yes, I'm a snob, fine), but that's a different story.

Stephenson has never seemed libertarian to me, and I was not surprised at all by the utterances this article quoted. In fact, Snowcrash seems to take place in a bit of a libertarian distopia. He seems more like a guy who's thought about libertarianism a lot, and disagrees with at least a fair bit of it.

And that's why he interests me. He isn't missing the point, either in the discussion of technological or political theory... he just disagrees. Hence he may present an opportunity for me to refine my own views.

So my questions to the Stepensonian scholars out there... am I correct in my inferences? Most importantly, what more directly political stuff has Stephenson written? And how would you characterize the man's view of the proper role of government?

Before you correct me...

[Skald]

Ahem... yes... Hacker Crackdown... (Sterling != Stephenson)... knew that... yes...

I'm not really an idiot, trust me. :-)

The synthetic approach

[Aceticon]

I would say those guys are looking at the other way to solve problems ...

There are two kind of aproaches to a problem:

• The analytical approach - divide the problem into it's component parts and then solve each part separatly
• The synthetical approach - look at the context of the problem as a way to gather information to solve de problem, and even in some cases just avoid the problem altogether

The analytical approach by itself is not the most efficient way to solve problems - plenty of times you find out that you either solved the wrong problem, took the hardest path or created a new problem.

A good example of how the analytical approach to problem solving doesn't allways work is ( taken from a book whose title i unfortunatly don't remember ) is the following:

If to find out why the cars in Great Britain have the steering-wheel on the right and in the rest of europe have it on the left you apply the analythical approach, you will divide the cars in it's component parts, but as much try you will not find out why it is so. If you apply the synthetical approach you will look at the context in which the cars are and ... voilá.

Most programmers ( i know ) seem to be very much into the first approach - they just keep happily (or not) programming the solution to one or other problem, paying little atention to the world around them, when suddenly some unexpected event hits them, and they don't know where it came from (like for instance seeing all your work thrown away because someone didn't really understand what the problem was and told you to solve the wrong thing).

It's time that you guys see that Sometimes to achieve your objectives you have to Hack The World

libertarianism does not = anarchism

[ATKeiper]

The article was quite good, but the author seemed genuinely surprised to hear tech people arguing against corporate power. That should not come as a surprise.

In fact, the main flaw in the piece, as I see it, is that the author somehow assumed that "libertarianism" is the same as "anarchism." Libertarians know that there is an appropriate role for government, but that its role should be minimized to prevent an unhealthy accumulation of power in one corruptible institution. For the same reason, libertarians often oppose organized religion. And for the same reason, libertarians are now increasingly wary of aggregating corporate power.

It is a brilliantly American notion - best expressed in Federalist No. 10 - that factions and institutions ought to conflict with one another, for by their conflict is our freedom best preserved. Asking government to act against business institutions shows, therefore, not a sudden change of heart, but a deeper understanding of libertarian philosophy.

Occasionally, the author just went overboard, as when she blathered on about how librarians are civil servants paid by the public - and therefore, "true" libertarians should despise librarians? What nonsense.

Look, the political alignments of the tech communities (for there is not just one tech "community" of course) are likely to shift frequently in the coming years. As long as we don't get duped by "quick fixes," or slip into bed with an established political party, we will be able to keep sight of our ideas and ideals, and we shall watch our political power increase as society generally comes to accept the striking importance of technological issues.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

Re:libertarianism does not = anarchism

[GrouchoMarx]

The vast majority of the self-defined Libertarians I know would object to public libraries, public schools, the Department of Commerce, public police and fire departments, and a lot more. Good, bad, or otherwise, the term "Libertarian" in the modern American context does mean near-anarchistic Ayn Rand-style Egoism.

I've read Federalist #10 (liked it too). But which movement today, names and labels aside, seems to follow that the closest? Hmmm... the Democratic Party. Interesting. (Close being a relative term, of course.)

--GrouchoMarx

The Death of Privacy and the Birth of New Freedom

[spoonboy42]

First of all let me say that I am absolutely opposed to having any backdoors in encryption, government or otherwise. I also believe that encryption is, in our current world, necessary for the protection of innocent individiduals.

Now for the inflamatory part: What if there were no crypto? What if all of our data could be accessed by anyone else with reasonable hacking skill? What if we could do the same for all of the top secret information held by the government and corporations? What would our world look like?

I'll tell you what: We would find out the truth. The people could no longer be lied to by companies that suppressed information about the danger of their products. No injustice could escape our eye. True, the RIAA could see all of my MP3s, and the government could read the pro-socialist/civil libertarian papers that I've written for my history class. But I could see all of the accounting records from our favorite record labels and PROVE that CDs are price fixed. I could find all of the illegal searches done without warrants and DEMAND that these wrongs be righted.

Information is our most powerfull weapon in defeating corporatism and imperialism. If crypto, and privacy with it, dies, then the result can only be greater freedom. And I like freedom.

Viewing the world from a POV...

[fmoody]

Um, just read some of the other stuff on the Salon site by this author. Her biases, if you couldn't pick them out of the article, come out fairly clearly in some of the other pieces. She definitely has some internal issues that she is projecting, fairly hard IMHO.

As a side note, I think I'm am gonna note down the author's name so I don't end up working with 'em...

Is Slashdot getting more mature?

[|guillaume|]

Thanks to michael for not including the submitter point of view, and letting people talks their ideas instead of suggesting one, as it is usually.

I think it should always be like this, this is so much more neutral and makes things interesting.

---
guillaume

Questions every citizen should ponder

[GrouchoMarx]

Let me ask a question. How many of you Slashdot readers are anti-government regulation, for whatever reason? *waits as people raise their hands.*

Now, how many of you Slashdot readers cheered when Judge Jackson came back with a Guilty verdict against Microsoft? *wats as almost all of Slashdot raises their hands.*

Those of you who raised your hands both times, isn't that just a little hypocritical? Aren't anti-trust laws a form of government regulation, which should be stopped as it is evil?

I cannot repeat this next sentence enough times: Government is not inherently evil. That's because government is not an entity in and of itself. It is only a tool of those who vote people into government. If the public votes in people who will then turn around and break unions and let banks fleece customers and get away with it (read: Ronald Reagan), that's not because government is "evil." The primary interest of a member of Congres is getting your vote, so that he (or she) remains a member of Congress. That's why voting is so important.

The primary interest of a business, however, is to get as much of your money as it possibly can. Yes, in an ideal world, the people running a business would be socially responsible and pass savings onto the consumer and protect the enviornment and invest in our future, but guess what, we're not living in an ideal world. We're living in a zero-responsibility profit-driven stock market-based laissez-fair capitalism, in which the company that doesn't fleece the public goes out of business, even if it was because they wanted to be enviornmentally safe.

Sure, you could "vote with your dollars," if you had any idea what to vote for. Any non-smokers out there? How many of you buy from Kraft foods? How many of you knew that Kraft was owned by R.J. Reynolds?

Anyone out there prefer family farm milk to corporate milk, because the corporate farms tend to be more polluting and destroy the livelyhood of small farmers? I do. Of course, if you go to the store and pick up a quart of milk, you don't know which type of farm it came from. In fact, in most cases it came from both. The typical container of milk comes from several dozen farms and several hundred cows. So there is no way for you to know if you're supporting family farms or corporate farms, and the company is not about to tell you. Maybe if there was a law requiring them to state where the milk comes from, like there is a law requiring that they state the nutrition information..... Oh, wait, that's "Evil Big Brother Government" telling poor innocent Big Business how to run its business. We can't have that, now can we?

I'm not trying to say that business is inherently evil here, either. I'm saying that business is in no way beholden to you, the consumer, at all. And as a stock holder, your investment will go down when the company spends a lot of money on converting to being enviornmentally safe, and then you loose money.

Government, on the other hand, is as beholden to you as you (plural you) make it. If you pay attention to "independent" special interest group commercials on TV, then yes, you will get a government that protects the interests of the rich at the expense of the poor and middle-class. So don't pay attention to those commercials. Get out there and get an idea about what you're voting for, and then do so. If you really want to have an influence in your government, work on a campaign. How many of you have met your US Congressperson? How many of you have send a letter/e-mail to your US Senator? If the response is less than 100%, then there is the problem.

Government is not pure and virtuous, no. But I will take Big Brother Bill Clinton over Big Brother Bill Gates any day, for one very simple reason: As a voter, I put Bill Clinton in office, and I can take him out. I don't have that kind of power over Bill Gates, or any corporate leader.

--GrouchoMarx

Corporate Power

[GrouchoMarx]

Did you know that Walgreens Drug Stores, legally, get more "private" information on you than the CIA? Walgreens now requires that you give them your driver's liscense number on any check you write. And by going through your bank, which they obviously do any time you use a check, credit card, debit card, ATM card, whatnot, they can get your social security number, current address, past address, level of eductation, mother's maiden name, current employer, and lots of other fun stuff.

For the FBI to get that kind of information on you, they need a court order. Private companies do it daily and call it "protecting their business interests." Now you tell me which one is more disturbing.

--GrouchoMarx

Libertarians, Socialists, Corporatists, etc.

[The Scooter King]

(Oops I think I just posted a blank comment)

All of the things we are talking about here are concepts that exist on a continuum (Actually several different ones). To the extent that one's beliefs lie one way or another one is labelled with some tag which denotes their spot on that continuum, and if people agree with what one person said they may adopt that person's label as their own.

But they are just that Labels!

One thing that true socialism and libertarianism have in common is a belief that less government is more effective (Go read some Marx sometime before deciding that all socialists want big government). Corporatists want less government too, but only in so much as it allows them to exert more control over the populus themselves. Even government types these days are saying they should be smaller, but that seems to mean give fewer people more power with less accountability.

In the end the real question we need to be asking ourselves is what can I do to ensure that my rights don't get trampled on? So far, throughout human history, the best tools for ensuring liberty have been democracy and the "free marketplace of ideas" (the disillusioned commie in me struggled with that last one - not the free part but the marketplace - damned capitalists taking over the language ;)). To the extent that any social structure, be it representative democracy or Gnutella, increases our freedoms it's a Good Thing as far as I'm concerned. And that can include trade unions (the freedom to say no to ridiculous working conditions), privacy regulations (the freedom to go through life unmonitored, and to have a legal recourse should this right be infringed) or Slashdot (the freedom to spout off like giant windbags about whatever happens to twig our twisted little collective psyche).

If all of this means our ideas come from somehwere other than the libertarian ideal, who cares?

It's just a label!

Article missing the point...

[alarmo]

The point of crypto, etc, has always seemed to be to limit (hopefully, cut off) access your data to people you don't wish to see it - really, that's all crypto can do. In recent times, it becomes increasingly obvious that crypto, of course, does nothing to stop people from collecting their own data about you, or (legally) forcing you to open your communications/not use crypto/restrict access to crypto/etc. No technology in the world will help with this - the "fundamental problem" of electronic privacy has moved up a notch.

So the community is realizing this fact, that there's always both social and technological issues here. No big surprise. How the writer of this article turns this into a major philospohical-political treatise leaves me a bit mystified.

No technology will make you immune from laws governing technology. There's incredible naivete in the beliefs the writer so casually seems to attribute to the community here. The conclusions seem to be on a tangent from the evidence the article provides.

Hype

[decaf_dude]

I just hate the way people get hyped about things. Privacy is one of those things. I mean, with all the phone books, health records, school records, what have you not, people start screaming as soon as a free e-mail provider asks for their real name!
Echelon is just an example. Everyone is so hyped up about it, perhaps thinking they are interesting enough for NSA/CIA/FBI/MI5/FSB to spy on them.
Get real! I'm all for PGP and *reasonable* security/privacy measures, but still think people are far too excited over matters that are not. I think we have bigger problems. I really doubt anyone is interested in the contents of the mail I get through my pgsql-hackers list. Ooops, i said the H-word!
I think the cypherpunks finally got it right and realised that perhaps things aren't so bad, and that the vision of Big Brother looming above was just a result of one too many joints smoked.

Re:Still about protecting rights...

[thesparkle]

Nice try, junebug, but I am married, over 35 and with children. (not everyone here lives in dreamworld).

Not having a Social Security number was not a problem for the first 60+ years of our income tax. The numbers of persons violating the law will not change regardless of what laws the lumbering government puts on its' citizens. Those that have broken the law will only find another way around it. Furthermore, I would like to see the real numbers that prove the level of fraud was at a neccessary level which dictated this change.

Also, this is not limited to tax forms. In recent years, there have been a host of proposals to use SS#'s for other "government streamlining" proposals. Look it up.

Re:Still about protecting rights...

[thesparkle]

Yep, I am afraid of evil "corporations"..

The GOVERNMENT used to require Social Security numbers when you got a job, now they require every child six months and older to have one for "tax purposes". A seven-month old needs to pay taxes? Since when?

The GOVERNMENT has broken treaties with the Indians over mineral and oil rights, has broken up fair protests (Seattle), and arrested and detained citizens without due process.

The GOVERNMENT does not want me to buy airline tickets with cash, limits the amount of cash I can legally send using wire services and is opposed to encryption of my personal files on my computer all in the name of public safety, (and requires privately owned companies to comply with these rules). How does me whipping out a wad of Ben Franklins to pay for a plane trip to Philadelphia threaten national security?

The GOVERNMENT has broad search and seizure rules without need for warrant, has the right to track all firearm purchases and trips outside of our shores, has the right to mandate new taxes (even though it is forbidden by the Constitution), and has the right to fight undeclared wars against foreign powers (even though that is against the Constitution as well).

Evil corporations gather data on me to send me spam, junk mail, and telemarketer's calls. I can live with that.

Further more, I can still call Sears, AT&T, Bank of America, and just about any other "corporation" I have done business with and get someone with authority to hear my grievance and make amends, up to and including, refunding my money.

I challenge you to call any branch of GOVERNMENT, (post office, county tax assessors, congressman, etc) and find a anyone remotely interested in listening to your problem, and having the authority to refund your tax dollars for causing you inconvinience.

Once you hand it over to the GOVERNMENT, you can forget about getting it back.

List for me the liberties "evil corporations" have taken from you.

I will be waiting.