Though it's tempting to blame this all on "Big Brother" as the lead article does we really have too look at the root causes.
Canada is traditionally a pretty socialist country. Even the most right wing reform member couldn't seriously suggest disbanding universal health care and expect to get re-elected. I don't want to get into this too much, but one of the cost efficiencies of social programs that are universal is that they are available to all people... a huge amount of money is saved on administration costs necessary to keep the "wrong people" out. Hospitals, clinics, etc. just do what they do without having to worry about checking a credit rating
Anyway, so assume this (probably most American readers think it's crap as their political environment tends to be much more right wing as a norm; trust me for the sake of argument.) Now we have all sorts of social programs running, a good number of those for 20-30 years. The governments are cutting back and cutting budgets. Most of these major social programs (homeless shelters, clinics, employments centres, etc) contibute to the public good. Many items are not tangible but they have an overall effect on communities people live in.
How should these departments save money? All in great chorus: put all the information in a database and share it all. It just makes sense that every clinic you go to, or unemployment office should be able to figure out who you are so you can be treated. Just makes sense right? Technology put to good use, right?
More cutbacks later, conservative governments allowing companies into school boards which show TV commercials as part of the opening announcements in schools, hospitals closings, major restructuring of social systems without any democratic input (a la Mike Harris)... where does that leave us? Private industry has a firm toe hold in public goods. Departments have dwindling budgets and they need money to continue services....
It just makes sense that they are going to want to centralize information. It's more efficient and it's a natural reaction to market forces.
Maybe we should alter our discussion somewhat and consider that it's not Big Brother that's a dnager to our privacy... maybe it's our pocketbooks. Does this mean we have to pay for privacy? Is this good or bad?
Just wanted to put this discussion in a different light...
Maybe it's just the two different group of posters, but it's interesting to see the change of opinion in this forum and in the one from Tuesday about Internet self-regulation.
Thurow was lambasted in that forum for suggesting that self regulation was a myth unless there was some force on the sidelines waiting to step in if people didn't play fair. Fair enough.
However, I find it interesting that people seem quite happy with the idea of a government body coming in and forcing the cable companies to let others be more competitive.
I would point out that competitive access to the physical network (ie. consumers with a wide choice of service providers) means that there will be greater freedom on the 'net. Why? Big providers like AOL, Sympatico are reknowned for catering to the most conservative faction in order to appeal to the largest market possible. (Wasn't it AOL who used to censor chat groups by their members? I think it's in Rheingold's book...)
In the fine print of the @Home use policies it says you're not supposed to set up your own server on their network. Of course, many people who know what they're doing ignore them, but if @Home had their way everyone would only be accessing the net and not publishing to it except with @Home servers (and presumably subject to @Home's ideas of what is proper and improper posting).
Take it from the other side though, especially with regards to Canada, a country that still has rather draconian censorship laws. (Border guards have been known to hold 'pornographic' materials for review. The scary thing about censorship of course, is that it always comes down to a few people telling others what's right.)
My rather drawn out point is this: regulation has it's place, but so does the competition of the market. I don't for a second think that either one is our friend (or enemy!), but that they should be played off each other to get the desired outcome. I think posters in this forum would be pretty receptive to that idea, but I think maybe others from the Thurow discussion may have pause for thought.
Slashdot Mirror
Canada is traditionally a pretty socialist country. Even the most right wing reform member couldn't seriously suggest disbanding universal health care and expect to get re-elected. I don't want to get into this too much, but one of the cost efficiencies of social programs that are universal is that they are available to all people... a huge amount of money is saved on administration costs necessary to keep the "wrong people" out. Hospitals, clinics, etc. just do what they do without having to worry about checking a credit rating
Anyway, so assume this (probably most American readers think it's crap as their political environment tends to be much more right wing as a norm; trust me for the sake of argument.) Now we have all sorts of social programs running, a good number of those for 20-30 years. The governments are cutting back and cutting budgets. Most of these major social programs (homeless shelters, clinics, employments centres, etc) contibute to the public good. Many items are not tangible but they have an overall effect on communities people live in.
How should these departments save money? All in great chorus: put all the information in a database and share it all. It just makes sense that every clinic you go to, or unemployment office should be able to figure out who you are so you can be treated. Just makes sense right? Technology put to good use, right?
More cutbacks later, conservative governments allowing companies into school boards which show TV commercials as part of the opening announcements in schools, hospitals closings, major restructuring of social systems without any democratic input (a la Mike Harris)... where does that leave us? Private industry has a firm toe hold in public goods. Departments have dwindling budgets and they need money to continue services....
It just makes sense that they are going to want to centralize information. It's more efficient and it's a natural reaction to market forces.
Maybe we should alter our discussion somewhat and consider that it's not Big Brother that's a dnager to our privacy... maybe it's our pocketbooks. Does this mean we have to pay for privacy? Is this good or bad?
Just wanted to put this discussion in a different light...
Maybe it's just the two different group of posters, but it's interesting to see the change of opinion in this forum and in the one from Tuesday about Internet self-regulation.
Thurow was lambasted in that forum for suggesting that self regulation was a myth unless there was some force on the sidelines waiting to step in if people didn't play fair. Fair enough.
However, I find it interesting that people seem quite happy with the idea of a government body coming in and forcing the cable companies to let others be more competitive.
I would point out that competitive access to the physical network (ie. consumers with a wide choice of service providers) means that there will be greater freedom on the 'net. Why? Big providers like AOL, Sympatico are reknowned for catering to the most conservative faction in order to appeal to the largest market possible. (Wasn't it AOL who used to censor chat groups by their members? I think it's in Rheingold's book...)
In the fine print of the @Home use policies it says you're not supposed to set up your own server on their network. Of course, many people who know what they're doing ignore them, but if @Home had their way everyone would only be accessing the net and not publishing to it except with @Home servers (and presumably subject to @Home's ideas of what is proper and improper posting).
Take it from the other side though, especially with regards to Canada, a country that still has rather draconian censorship laws. (Border guards have been known to hold 'pornographic' materials for review. The scary thing about censorship of course, is that it always comes down to a few people telling others what's right.)
My rather drawn out point is this: regulation has it's place, but so does the competition of the market. I don't for a second think that either one is our friend (or enemy!), but that they should be played off each other to get the desired outcome. I think posters in this forum would be pretty receptive to that idea, but I think maybe others from the Thurow discussion may have pause for thought.