Thank you! I always do leave my torrent client up and running for a good while afterwards, otherwise, what's the point in using BitTorrent? (^; If you're firewalled or nat'ing like me, don't forget to open up at least 6881, up through 6889 if you run multiple torrents at the same time.
In you book Code (which I am currently reading) you put forward an example, to make a point about constitutional ambiguity as often relates to technology, about how a hypothetical Internet worm, crafted by a law enforcement agency, could be interpreted as violating the 4th ammendment or abiding by it, depending on which intent you believe that ammendment to satisfy.
I have to admit that there is an aspect of this example that bothers me, as much as I've enjoyed and been challenged by the rest of the book so far. I very well understand the point you are trying to make and accept the scenario as described for that end, however there are some serious real life problems I do not believe the example addresses.
Would you concede that there exists a greater possibility of cost and/or burden to the persons being searched with an Internet worm than you might have anticipated when formulating the example?
There is an issue from current discussions in the computer security field that might better inform why I ask. Often, when the worm of the week or virus of the day is discovered, someone suggests coopting the replication code of said agent but with a "good" payload, such as patches to fix the exploit the original pathogen used to infect a system or some other seriously low level system alteration intended to result in better future security of the compromised system.
I am of the camp that believes this would be the worst possible mistake for addressing infectious, free ranging code. The argument against goes something along the lines that no code is ever perfect and even a slight mistake in the most well meaning code could have disastrous consequences. There are additional arguments about dilution of integrity checking and problems undoing such a payload, but they are not as applicable to your hypothetical law enforcer bug as it's state purpose is just to sniff for some predetermined illegal document.
Don't you think it's possible that a small defect in an FBI crafted worm could introduce cost and burden equivalent to or far beyond what is incurred with a traditional property search? Were you ignoring these concerns for the sake of your point about ambiguity or are you genuinely unconcerend at the prospective of a well meaning virus deleting hundreds if not thousands of innocent users' hard drives? How about the prospective of a malicious person coopting such a bug to do intentional harm, as is often the case after a new Internet pathogen is discovered (Code Red begat Code Red II begat Nimda, etc.)? Wouldn't suggesting systems be "friendly" to such "official" intruders make any such exposure that much worse?
I read this article, and as a card carrying libertarian it chaps my ass, and here's why. This author conflates libertarianism in general with a class of tecno-elitist who have coopted libertarianism because it fits their own ideals. Not that this is necessarily wrong, but this has plagued libertarianism since its inception: its adoption by fringe elements who overshadow the more moderate members of the party. She rightly points out the problem that those pushing to make public policy often have trouble with even basic social interaction--however, this has nothing to do with the subscription of those same folks to the libertarian party or point of view.
I also object to her reactionary assertion that innovation is impossible without government. Yes, the technologies that made these techno-libertarians forces to be considered in the public arena are the legacy of government projects, but I would argue there's a fine distinction missed here: there are the children of *military* projects: DARPAnet, the first computers (ENIAC, &c.) were developed for *military* purposes (calculating projectile trajectories, code-breaking, &c.), et. al. The libertarian platform has no problem with the military--this is one of the few constitutional powers granted to the federal government, to raise a standing army. Beyond the subsidies, I wouldn't argue that government regulation is an overwhelming success. Industrial polluters continue to get away with it by being "grandfathered" past new anti-polution regulations. How often do you see horror stories about corporate interests flaunting regulation at the expense of the consumer? I would argue that the fear of class action suit is a stronger disincentive not to screw with a consumer base.
As for her closing assertions:
Protecting Privacy - excuse me?! Yes, corporations are trying to get and sell our personal data. No one was proposing that corporate America be entrusted with our privacy. As a staunch libertarian, I would argue this falls within the realm of the government's powers by way of the Bill of Rights. The government must respect my privay--however, this does not preclude it alsom protecting and ensuring it. Saying I don't want the govenerment snooping in my affairs is not equivalent to say they should be powerless to stop others from doing so.
Skimping on philanthropy: Again, she has targeted a particular breed of (arguably) libertarian folks. And what does this have to do with governance or anything other than the social/moral character of the billionaire geek? As a well paid technologist who falls within her parameters, I participate in philanthropy--the Nature Conservancy, my local NPR station, &c.
Gutting the environment: I'm sorry, this is a stretch. Is the high tech sector the only responsible for polluting? And the morality barb about immigrants coming here because of government regulation on environments is bunk--however imperfectly? Try very imperfectly. Do you know who the worst polluters are? Companies working leased government lands. This is thin argument overall at best. Environmental arguments always are aimed at the heart--"what about posterity?". What about facts, like some reports on pollution levels caused by high tech industries versus mining and logging or other traditional manufacturing?
Ignoring cities: What, did she need an even four points, here? This argument doesn't even make sense.
Once again, her conclusion conflates the inept politicking of social deficient techno-riche (who arguably have to be socially inept to be focused and driven enough to get that damn rich) with the libertarian agenda, which is utter bunk. She makes many valid arguments about the alarming lack of gratitude, compassion, and sense of what has come before amongst the newly rich, technocrats but this is hardly an idictment of all libertarians and many of these traits could be ascribe just as easily to the old-money mega-rich that are just as disconnected from the plight of the common man as many of the "geeks" populating the upper stratosphere of the dot-com world.
You want to uphold the constitution, vote Harry Browne. He may not win, but voting for him is better than abstaining, or voting for one of the other candidates because you can't find someone better.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you! I always do leave my torrent client up and running for a good while afterwards, otherwise, what's the point in using BitTorrent? (^; If you're firewalled or nat'ing like me, don't forget to open up at least 6881, up through 6889 if you run multiple torrents at the same time.
What about for Firebird 0.7? Does anyone have a torrent for the Mac OS X version of Firebird 0.7?
Dr. Lessig,
In you book Code (which I am currently reading) you put forward an example, to make a point about constitutional ambiguity as often relates to technology, about how a hypothetical Internet worm, crafted by a law enforcement agency, could be interpreted as violating the 4th ammendment or abiding by it, depending on which intent you believe that ammendment to satisfy.
I have to admit that there is an aspect of this example that bothers me, as much as I've enjoyed and been challenged by the rest of the book so far. I very well understand the point you are trying to make and accept the scenario as described for that end, however there are some serious real life problems I do not believe the example addresses.
Would you concede that there exists a greater possibility of cost and/or burden to the persons being searched with an Internet worm than you might have anticipated when formulating the example?
There is an issue from current discussions in the computer security field that might better inform why I ask. Often, when the worm of the week or virus of the day is discovered, someone suggests coopting the replication code of said agent but with a "good" payload, such as patches to fix the exploit the original pathogen used to infect a system or some other seriously low level system alteration intended to result in better future security of the compromised system.
I am of the camp that believes this would be the worst possible mistake for addressing infectious, free ranging code. The argument against goes something along the lines that no code is ever perfect and even a slight mistake in the most well meaning code could have disastrous consequences. There are additional arguments about dilution of integrity checking and problems undoing such a payload, but they are not as applicable to your hypothetical law enforcer bug as it's state purpose is just to sniff for some predetermined illegal document.
Don't you think it's possible that a small defect in an FBI crafted worm could introduce cost and burden equivalent to or far beyond what is incurred with a traditional property search? Were you ignoring these concerns for the sake of your point about ambiguity or are you genuinely unconcerend at the prospective of a well meaning virus deleting hundreds if not thousands of innocent users' hard drives? How about the prospective of a malicious person coopting such a bug to do intentional harm, as is often the case after a new Internet pathogen is discovered (Code Red begat Code Red II begat Nimda, etc.)? Wouldn't suggesting systems be "friendly" to such "official" intruders make any such exposure that much worse?
Thomas Gideon
I read this article, and as a card carrying libertarian it chaps my ass, and here's why. This author conflates libertarianism in general with a class of tecno-elitist who have coopted libertarianism because it fits their own ideals. Not that this is necessarily wrong, but this has plagued libertarianism since its inception: its adoption by fringe elements who overshadow the more moderate members of the party. She rightly points out the problem that those pushing to make public policy often have trouble with even basic social interaction--however, this has nothing to do with the subscription of those same folks to the libertarian party or point of view.
I also object to her reactionary assertion that innovation is impossible without government. Yes, the technologies that made these techno-libertarians forces to be considered in the public arena are the legacy of government projects, but I would argue there's a fine distinction missed here: there are the children of *military* projects: DARPAnet, the first computers (ENIAC, &c.) were developed for *military* purposes (calculating projectile trajectories, code-breaking, &c.), et. al. The libertarian platform has no problem with the military--this is one of the few constitutional powers granted to the federal government, to raise a standing army. Beyond the subsidies, I wouldn't argue that government regulation is an overwhelming success. Industrial polluters continue to get away with it by being "grandfathered" past new anti-polution regulations. How often do you see horror stories about corporate interests flaunting regulation at the expense of the consumer? I would argue that the fear of class action suit is a stronger disincentive not to screw with a consumer base.
As for her closing assertions:
Protecting Privacy - excuse me?! Yes, corporations are trying to get and sell our personal data. No one was proposing that corporate America be entrusted with our privacy. As a staunch libertarian, I would argue this falls within the realm of the government's powers by way of the Bill of Rights. The government must respect my privay--however, this does not preclude it alsom protecting and ensuring it. Saying I don't want the govenerment snooping in my affairs is not equivalent to say they should be powerless to stop others from doing so.
Skimping on philanthropy: Again, she has targeted a particular breed of (arguably) libertarian folks. And what does this have to do with governance or anything other than the social/moral character of the billionaire geek? As a well paid technologist who falls within her parameters, I participate in philanthropy--the Nature Conservancy, my local NPR station, &c.
Gutting the environment: I'm sorry, this is a stretch. Is the high tech sector the only responsible for polluting? And the morality barb about immigrants coming here because of government regulation on environments is bunk--however imperfectly? Try very imperfectly. Do you know who the worst polluters are? Companies working leased government lands. This is thin argument overall at best. Environmental arguments always are aimed at the heart--"what about posterity?". What about facts, like some reports on pollution levels caused by high tech industries versus mining and logging or other traditional manufacturing?
Ignoring cities: What, did she need an even four points, here? This argument doesn't even make sense.
Once again, her conclusion conflates the inept politicking of social deficient techno-riche (who arguably have to be socially inept to be focused and driven enough to get that damn rich) with the libertarian agenda, which is utter bunk. She makes many valid arguments about the alarming lack of gratitude, compassion, and sense of what has come before amongst the newly rich, technocrats but this is hardly an idictment of all libertarians and many of these traits could be ascribe just as easily to the old-money mega-rich that are just as disconnected from the plight of the common man as many of the "geeks" populating the upper stratosphere of the dot-com world.
You want to uphold the constitution, vote Harry Browne. He may not win, but voting for him is better than abstaining, or voting for one of the other candidates because you can't find someone better.
Better yet, go to http://www.harrybrowne2000.org.