Your wish about laws and treaties - or rather, effective laws and treaties - ain't gonna happen
No, it's not. But I can virtually guarantee that lots of ineffective ones will happen, and probably very soon. My guess is that these will not succeed in preventing outlaws, "rogue" nations, and "terrorists" from obtaining this technology, but what they will do is prevent it from ever falling into the hands of the real enemy, the average joe consumer. This will have the effect of continuing to protect the elite from the people, while enhancing the threat of violence, thus providing an excuse for ever tighter means of control.
When something can create fear in people, those in power will embrace it and use it against people
To be precise, those in power will embrace it and use the fear it creates to enahnce their control of people. What will never happen is that this technology will never be available to the general public. Because of the danger it represents, the fist will be tightened that much more.
Fortunately, "the more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." --Princess Lea
Actually, we already achieved leisure time. It's called a hunter-gatherer society. Most indigenous hunter-gatherers only do three or four hours a day of what we would call work. The idea of not having leisure time is relatively new, i.e., only about ten thousand years old or so.
The chance of a global nuclear war occuring is much less than it was during the 80's
Actually, from what I've heard, by most estimates it is actually much higher. Stable equilibrium is easy to achieve with only two powers. But as early as the late nineties, the Pentagon was reporting that something like 23 countries had or were developing weapons of mass distruction. (Coincidence? I think not!)
I think the idea that we are safe from nuclear war because the cold war is over is pure myth.
There has been talk after every revolution that we're going to destroy ourselves. For better or for worse, I sometimes doubt its possible.
Sure, and that means that the probablity of destroying ourselves must not be very high. But the thing about destroying yourself is, it only has to happen once. To say that something is improbable just means that you would expect it to take longer to happen. We have certainly demonstrated that it is not impossible, therefore by the laws of probability, it is almost certain to happen sooner or later, it is only a matter of time. "Everything that is not forbidden is compulsory." -- Richard Feynmann
The Big Bang was incredibly improbable too, by most estimates, same with the emergence of life, but it only has to happen once. More species have gone extinct than have survived.
"Laff-a while you can-a, Monkey-Boy!" -- Lord John Worfin
Well, yeah, duh. All of these weapons are terrible. And it is quite possible that the species will be just fine, sure. But tell that to all the people who have been killed by the weapons you mentioned. The potential to create ever more effective means of violence is an effect of technology which we should not ever overlook.
The dangers of this technology are real, and definitely worth discussing. However, what is most interesting to me, and perhaps to others who were not terribly thrilled about the industrial revolution, is a potential benefit which is somewhat overlooked.
The article talks about how a suitcase of equipment could create a village-sized industrial revolution. But this technology is, at least potentially, post-industrial. That is to say, it can be used on the small scale, making advanced technology available in a way which is independent of big corporations and large-scale manufacturing facilities. This is a huge thing.
If it is allowed to develop along these lines, it will mean the restructuring of our entire society, in a way which I and many others have been waiting and hoping for for some time now. It will mean we can have our cake and eat it too: we get all the benefits of advanced technology, without all the horrible detriments of the hegemony of megacorps. Whohoo!
Unfortunately, I doubt this will be allowed to happen, at least not at first. Here's a prediction: as soon as this becomes imminant, we will see the massive implementation of extremely restrictive measures to control it. These will be adopted in the name of security, but incidentally they will also have the effect of making it virtually impossible to use this technology independently, without relying on megacorporate support. This will probably mean continued widespread poverty in the third world, but we will accept it out of fear.
But at least the potential will be there.
On a completely unrelated note:
most human-scale products would consist almost entirely of empty space
Actually, to be precise, everything consists almost entirely of empty space. "The solid parts of this rock, the neutrons, quarks, protons and electrons, compose only one quadrillianth of its total volume... you could pulverize that mountain and sift through it like breadcrumbs for the rest of your natural life, and you would never, ever, find... this!" --Buccaroo Banzai.
Your treating that statement of them coming from a Creator as a matter of fact
No, not really, I'm just quoting it. I happen to agree with it, but I don't expect you to without critical evaluation. But it is worth noting that this document is part of the foundation of American society, that it is part of the reason why we call ourselves a "free country", and so it seems reasonable to me to quote it in a discussion about human rights, that's all. I don't think the Declaration of Independence was divinely inspired, but I think it is pretty damn insightful, and should probably be modded up.;-)
I saw this in somebody's sig the other day, and now I can't remember who it was. I thought it was brilliant. In this case, the best manual to read is probably The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. "Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence"
I am a Christian. Personally, I think Jesus would fight oppression, tyranny, and injustice in any form wherever he found it. That's what he did in his own life, not by violence, but by inspired words which opened people's eyes to the tyranny being imposed upon them by the leaders of their day. I think he would tell the government to start thinking about the log in their own eye, and not worry so much about the mote in their brother's eye. But I take a fairly unusual view of Christianity, which is that it's mostly about the life and teachings of a carpenter named Yeshua.
Yeah, we've been hearing a lot of this sort of attitude lately. Unfortunately, the problem with it is, our society has taken a radical swing to the right since the days of the founding fathers. What, you say, you don't believe me? Back in high school, I knew a group of students who did a project for their history class. They rewrote the Declaration of Independence in modern language, took it to the mall, and tried to get people to sign it as a petetion. Nobody would. They all said it was "too radical." So you see, our whole basis for calling ourselves a "free society" in the US is a set of ideas that many, if not most, Americans find too radical to accept any more.
I already know the answer to your question in my own case, which is that I do not find the practice acceptable now. But I am trying to provide a cultural referent which might help others to grapple with the question of whether it is acceptable by the standards which supposedly make us a free society.
I suspect that if we in the US were to rewrite the basis of our government now, we would come up with something pretty horrifying.
Not according to the Declaration of Independence.
"...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." It says that governments only exist "to secure these rights," not to bestow them, implying that the rights themselves exist outside the framework of any governing body.
But oh, yeah, I forgot, it's about time we stopped basing our society on these outdated ideas and moldy old documents and converted to pure, unadulterated Social Darwinism, right?
a shifty, suspicious looking fellow who calls himself "freejung"
Hey, how did you know that I'm shifty and suspicious looking? Are you watching me?;-)
These are all good points, General Sir, and all the counterpoints I can think of at the moment have already been made by other posters, in particular in the post of geekotourist. I will admit that by itself this is not really all that big a deal. It is what you get when you combine this with the rest of what is going on in our society that it becomes really disturbing. But then, we may disagree about what is going on in our society, as well, I don't know. I just don't like it, that's all, and I wish there were something to be done about it, but there's probably not.
The parent is one of the better posts I've read in some time.
When we feel watched, we feel less free. We censor ourselves and our actions..
I was just thinking about this issue last night, after reading stories about blog tracking by intelligence agencies and a webmaster being prosecuted for maintaining sites which allegedly advocate jihad. After reading these things, I did feel less free. I was tempted to remove my name from my journal and start using an anonymous proxy, and realize that even that probably won't help much. I must admit, I am one of the fringe, and might be tempted to say things which might get me in trouble some day. I had the urge to self-censor.
But then I thought, fuck that. Let them know what I think, if they care, for all I care. If I stop speaking my mind out of fear that I will end up with an FBI profile a mile long, they have already won. Besides, I happen to know for a fact that I have an FBI profile anyway. So let them add a few slashdot comments to it, and they can start by adding this: fuck you! Sometimes I like to look up in the sky, smile for a sattelite picture, and flip them the bird.
I don't like the idea of being watched, but it is inevitable. No matter how much we complain about it, it will be done anyway. We should fight it every step of the way, of course, but it is a losing battle. So we all need to start practicing the art of feeling free anyway, or we will lose our only true freedom, which is the freedom to think however we will.
Fortunately, at the moment the only form of speech they seem to be really going after is speech advocating violence, and I am a pacifist and never advocate violence in any form. But I think it is only a matter of time before the increased powers of surveillance are used to gradually put the squeeze on all forms of dissent. Nonetheless, until they actually come and haul me away for saying I don't like what they're doing, I will continue to say it, and, as our illustrious commander in theif put it, "damn the concequences."
Good point. For instance, I can take a picture of you on a public street and keep it as long as I want.
But it's a little different when the government is doing it. Sure, this kind of surveillance is legal. But should it be? That is the question, and it is a good question. I for one am against it, but I also see it as inevitable. "The only privacy you have anymore is the inside of your own head, and maybe that's enough." -- "Enemy of the State".
You do not have a right to privacy in public. But you do have a right not to be surveilled by the police without some sort of check by the judiciary. This is the principle of checks and balances.
The important question to ask about these sorts of things is not whether they are permitted by the constitution, but whether the Founding Fathers would have forbidden them if they had any idea that they were possible. With the advance of technology, it is important to reevaluate our principles frequently. I just can't imagine Jefferson, for instance, being in favor of this sort of thing. It just doesn't sound like him.
rich people in poor countries have very little to do with capitalism
How can you be rich without having anything to do with capitalism? What non-capitalist bank are you going to put your money in? What non-capitalist investments are you going to invest in?
I see what you mean, of course, which is that the fact that there are rich people in poor countries has little to do with the free market. But not all capitalism is free-market capitalism. Indeed, it could be argued that none of it is.
Besides, many of the rich people in poor countries got rich by selling out their people and natural resources to multinational corporations. How could that be unrelated to capitalism?
The TTY Relay service is legally only usuable in the US
Ah, well, I didn't know that, sorry. I should have used a different example. There are still going to be some false-positive results from any filtering system you could implement. But in this case it's well worth it, since most of the filtered calls really will be scams.
You're absolutely right, of course, which is why I don't think implementing these filters is a problem. That this story was posted in YRO implies that there is some sort of question as to whether these filters are interfering with people's rights. While the Nigerian buying laptops is a clear case, there will always be borderline cases which are not so easy to distinguish, and of course the scammers will learn to mimic these cases. This is why it's an issue. Nonetheless, I think the filters are a good idea.
This sort of fraud probably does carry a hefty sentence. The trick is catching them.
This is one of those difficult issues where it's going to be almost impossible to throw out the bathwater without throwing out some of the babies as well. What if someone in Nigeria actually wants to purchase $30,000 worth of laptops? It's not impossible.
However, since use of this service is not a right, but a privilege, it seems fair to go ahead and throw out some of the babies, and let them get back in the bath on an individual basis. If you get blocked from using the service, there ought to be someone you can call to establish that you are using it for legitimate purposes. As long as they have that, seems to me they can implement whatever filters they see fit.
Yes, but this was precisely the parent's point. That this way of setting things up poses a threat to civil liberties, because the Senate is not as representative of the people as the House, and the House has always been out of the loop. Your points, while true, merely reinforce the argument of the parent. Of course, there is still the question of the degree to which either the House or the Senate really represent the will of their supposed constituents, but that's another topic.
Often jurisdiction over a crime is held to exist if the result of the crime occurs within the jurisdiction. At least, that's how it is in some US states. I, for instance, was prosecuted for a crime in Idaho, despite the fact that I was not in Idaho or even within the US during any time when the crime was taking place. So, for instance, if someone in Germany puts up material on their website which violates US copyright law but not German, and someone within the US downloads it, the German would be indictable under US law because the result of the crime occurred in the US.
of this is not so much what it allows other governments to do to US citizens, which will probably not end up amounting to much in a any case (can you imagine, for instance, the US cooperating with the Chinese govt on prosecution, if the Chinese were to sign this treaty? No way). The interesting aspect of this is that it will strengthen the powers of the US to conduct surveillance on non-US citizens in other countries which have signed the treaty. This, of course, is the reason Dubya wants it ratified.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not. But I can virtually guarantee that lots of ineffective ones will happen, and probably very soon. My guess is that these will not succeed in preventing outlaws, "rogue" nations, and "terrorists" from obtaining this technology, but what they will do is prevent it from ever falling into the hands of the real enemy, the average joe consumer. This will have the effect of continuing to protect the elite from the people, while enhancing the threat of violence, thus providing an excuse for ever tighter means of control.
Isn't our society fun?
To be precise, those in power will embrace it and use the fear it creates to enahnce their control of people. What will never happen is that this technology will never be available to the general public. Because of the danger it represents, the fist will be tightened that much more.
Fortunately, "the more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." --Princess Lea
Actually, we already achieved leisure time. It's called a hunter-gatherer society. Most indigenous hunter-gatherers only do three or four hours a day of what we would call work. The idea of not having leisure time is relatively new, i.e., only about ten thousand years old or so.
I should put down my crack pipe
Definitely! And pick up a bong! ;-)
Actually, from what I've heard, by most estimates it is actually much higher. Stable equilibrium is easy to achieve with only two powers. But as early as the late nineties, the Pentagon was reporting that something like 23 countries had or were developing weapons of mass distruction. (Coincidence? I think not!)
I think the idea that we are safe from nuclear war because the cold war is over is pure myth.
Sure, and that means that the probablity of destroying ourselves must not be very high. But the thing about destroying yourself is, it only has to happen once. To say that something is improbable just means that you would expect it to take longer to happen. We have certainly demonstrated that it is not impossible, therefore by the laws of probability, it is almost certain to happen sooner or later, it is only a matter of time. "Everything that is not forbidden is compulsory." -- Richard Feynmann
The Big Bang was incredibly improbable too, by most estimates, same with the emergence of life, but it only has to happen once. More species have gone extinct than have survived.
"Laff-a while you can-a, Monkey-Boy!" -- Lord John Worfin
Well, yeah, duh. All of these weapons are terrible. And it is quite possible that the species will be just fine, sure. But tell that to all the people who have been killed by the weapons you mentioned. The potential to create ever more effective means of violence is an effect of technology which we should not ever overlook.
The article talks about how a suitcase of equipment could create a village-sized industrial revolution. But this technology is, at least potentially, post-industrial. That is to say, it can be used on the small scale, making advanced technology available in a way which is independent of big corporations and large-scale manufacturing facilities. This is a huge thing.
If it is allowed to develop along these lines, it will mean the restructuring of our entire society, in a way which I and many others have been waiting and hoping for for some time now. It will mean we can have our cake and eat it too: we get all the benefits of advanced technology, without all the horrible detriments of the hegemony of megacorps. Whohoo!
Unfortunately, I doubt this will be allowed to happen, at least not at first. Here's a prediction: as soon as this becomes imminant, we will see the massive implementation of extremely restrictive measures to control it. These will be adopted in the name of security, but incidentally they will also have the effect of making it virtually impossible to use this technology independently, without relying on megacorporate support. This will probably mean continued widespread poverty in the third world, but we will accept it out of fear.
But at least the potential will be there.
On a completely unrelated note: most human-scale products would consist almost entirely of empty space
Actually, to be precise, everything consists almost entirely of empty space. "The solid parts of this rock, the neutrons, quarks, protons and electrons, compose only one quadrillianth of its total volume... you could pulverize that mountain and sift through it like breadcrumbs for the rest of your natural life, and you would never, ever, find... this!" --Buccaroo Banzai.
No, not really, I'm just quoting it. I happen to agree with it, but I don't expect you to without critical evaluation. But it is worth noting that this document is part of the foundation of American society, that it is part of the reason why we call ourselves a "free country", and so it seems reasonable to me to quote it in a discussion about human rights, that's all. I don't think the Declaration of Independence was divinely inspired, but I think it is pretty damn insightful, and should probably be modded up. ;-)
I am a Christian. Personally, I think Jesus would fight oppression, tyranny, and injustice in any form wherever he found it. That's what he did in his own life, not by violence, but by inspired words which opened people's eyes to the tyranny being imposed upon them by the leaders of their day. I think he would tell the government to start thinking about the log in their own eye, and not worry so much about the mote in their brother's eye. But I take a fairly unusual view of Christianity, which is that it's mostly about the life and teachings of a carpenter named Yeshua.
love and blessings,
freejung
PS: for a good laugh, and an interesting cultural experience, try reading The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Nigerian Pidgin English. It's beautiful.
Yeah, we've been hearing a lot of this sort of attitude lately. Unfortunately, the problem with it is, our society has taken a radical swing to the right since the days of the founding fathers. What, you say, you don't believe me? Back in high school, I knew a group of students who did a project for their history class. They rewrote the Declaration of Independence in modern language, took it to the mall, and tried to get people to sign it as a petetion. Nobody would. They all said it was "too radical." So you see, our whole basis for calling ourselves a "free society" in the US is a set of ideas that many, if not most, Americans find too radical to accept any more.
I already know the answer to your question in my own case, which is that I do not find the practice acceptable now. But I am trying to provide a cultural referent which might help others to grapple with the question of whether it is acceptable by the standards which supposedly make us a free society.
I suspect that if we in the US were to rewrite the basis of our government now, we would come up with something pretty horrifying.
Er, what about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? "Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy..."
Rights are given to you by the governing body
Not according to the Declaration of Independence. "...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." It says that governments only exist "to secure these rights," not to bestow them, implying that the rights themselves exist outside the framework of any governing body.
But oh, yeah, I forgot, it's about time we stopped basing our society on these outdated ideas and moldy old documents and converted to pure, unadulterated Social Darwinism, right?
Hey, how did you know that I'm shifty and suspicious looking? Are you watching me? ;-)
These are all good points, General Sir, and all the counterpoints I can think of at the moment have already been made by other posters, in particular in the post of geekotourist. I will admit that by itself this is not really all that big a deal. It is what you get when you combine this with the rest of what is going on in our society that it becomes really disturbing. But then, we may disagree about what is going on in our society, as well, I don't know. I just don't like it, that's all, and I wish there were something to be done about it, but there's probably not.
When we feel watched, we feel less free. We censor ourselves and our actions..
I was just thinking about this issue last night, after reading stories about blog tracking by intelligence agencies and a webmaster being prosecuted for maintaining sites which allegedly advocate jihad. After reading these things, I did feel less free. I was tempted to remove my name from my journal and start using an anonymous proxy, and realize that even that probably won't help much. I must admit, I am one of the fringe, and might be tempted to say things which might get me in trouble some day. I had the urge to self-censor.
But then I thought, fuck that. Let them know what I think, if they care, for all I care. If I stop speaking my mind out of fear that I will end up with an FBI profile a mile long, they have already won. Besides, I happen to know for a fact that I have an FBI profile anyway. So let them add a few slashdot comments to it, and they can start by adding this: fuck you! Sometimes I like to look up in the sky, smile for a sattelite picture, and flip them the bird.
I don't like the idea of being watched, but it is inevitable. No matter how much we complain about it, it will be done anyway. We should fight it every step of the way, of course, but it is a losing battle. So we all need to start practicing the art of feeling free anyway, or we will lose our only true freedom, which is the freedom to think however we will.
Fortunately, at the moment the only form of speech they seem to be really going after is speech advocating violence, and I am a pacifist and never advocate violence in any form. But I think it is only a matter of time before the increased powers of surveillance are used to gradually put the squeeze on all forms of dissent. Nonetheless, until they actually come and haul me away for saying I don't like what they're doing, I will continue to say it, and, as our illustrious commander in theif put it, "damn the concequences."
Good point. For instance, I can take a picture of you on a public street and keep it as long as I want.
But it's a little different when the government is doing it. Sure, this kind of surveillance is legal. But should it be? That is the question, and it is a good question. I for one am against it, but I also see it as inevitable. "The only privacy you have anymore is the inside of your own head, and maybe that's enough." -- "Enemy of the State".
You do not have a right to privacy in public. But you do have a right not to be surveilled by the police without some sort of check by the judiciary. This is the principle of checks and balances.
The important question to ask about these sorts of things is not whether they are permitted by the constitution, but whether the Founding Fathers would have forbidden them if they had any idea that they were possible. With the advance of technology, it is important to reevaluate our principles frequently. I just can't imagine Jefferson, for instance, being in favor of this sort of thing. It just doesn't sound like him.
How can you be rich without having anything to do with capitalism? What non-capitalist bank are you going to put your money in? What non-capitalist investments are you going to invest in?
I see what you mean, of course, which is that the fact that there are rich people in poor countries has little to do with the free market. But not all capitalism is free-market capitalism. Indeed, it could be argued that none of it is.
Besides, many of the rich people in poor countries got rich by selling out their people and natural resources to multinational corporations. How could that be unrelated to capitalism?
It's always good to have high hopes, but in this case I'm afraid you'll have to get used to disappointment. Here we come!
Ah, well, I didn't know that, sorry. I should have used a different example. There are still going to be some false-positive results from any filtering system you could implement. But in this case it's well worth it, since most of the filtered calls really will be scams.
Even poor countries still have rich people. That's the beauty of capitalism. But as I said before, I see no reason not to block these calls anyway.
This sort of fraud probably does carry a hefty sentence. The trick is catching them.
However, since use of this service is not a right, but a privilege, it seems fair to go ahead and throw out some of the babies, and let them get back in the bath on an individual basis. If you get blocked from using the service, there ought to be someone you can call to establish that you are using it for legitimate purposes. As long as they have that, seems to me they can implement whatever filters they see fit.
Yes, but this was precisely the parent's point. That this way of setting things up poses a threat to civil liberties, because the Senate is not as representative of the people as the House, and the House has always been out of the loop. Your points, while true, merely reinforce the argument of the parent. Of course, there is still the question of the degree to which either the House or the Senate really represent the will of their supposed constituents, but that's another topic.
Often jurisdiction over a crime is held to exist if the result of the crime occurs within the jurisdiction. At least, that's how it is in some US states. I, for instance, was prosecuted for a crime in Idaho, despite the fact that I was not in Idaho or even within the US during any time when the crime was taking place. So, for instance, if someone in Germany puts up material on their website which violates US copyright law but not German, and someone within the US downloads it, the German would be indictable under US law because the result of the crime occurred in the US.
of this is not so much what it allows other governments to do to US citizens, which will probably not end up amounting to much in a any case (can you imagine, for instance, the US cooperating with the Chinese govt on prosecution, if the Chinese were to sign this treaty? No way). The interesting aspect of this is that it will strengthen the powers of the US to conduct surveillance on non-US citizens in other countries which have signed the treaty. This, of course, is the reason Dubya wants it ratified.
Because it wasn't taken ;-)