Alex
06-02-2010, 03:59 AM
If privacy is the primary right or the construct that makes rights make sense then secrecy in the organizational, governmental or business sense is antithetical to it.
Ending secrecy and empowering with privacy may be a way to get at problematic aspects of political representation? Make sponsorship in all of its forms illegal and the related problems with lobbying and puffing will go as well. Sponsorship is a kind of bribery. Sometimes there is disclosure, but that’s a kind of loss leader for the insidious collusion and bribery that in practice dampens speech. This could prevent moneyed interests from getting the kind of power over discourse that money should never be able to buy.
No secrecy in contract, no non disclosure agreements, no corporate veil, no intellectual property protections, no state secrets, no classified or need to know anything. All of this stuff is uses secrecy to remove the ultimately nullify the privacy and voice of the individual.
In the IP sphere it time to do public research and hand the fruits out to all comers foreign and domestic. Firms can differentiate and incentivize on the basis of process, they just don’t get anything exclusive and certainly no exclusivity supported by law. Artists can go public domain they will make more. Society isn’t getting its return on equity from profit based incentive mechanisms so profit can fend for itself, die or become useful. It may be that society can get on without profit (or much of it) and we don’t need a Steve Perlman or Steve Jobs acting as the loss leader for a million miscreants.
It doesn’t matter if we were doing the original Manhattan project, our attitude should be: you may see exactly what we are doing but that doesn’t mean you can stop us or even get their first. This doesn’t mean we would point stuff out we just wouldn’t be allowing or expecting secrecy. It doesn’t matter if the rabble doesn’t’ understand, they can choose education.
It solves the insanity of torture. There would be no inane attempts to justify torture because stuff would always be obvious and we would expect people to tell the enemy everything and our people would know they wouldn’t have the luxury of any assumed secrecy because we wouldn’t allow for it. The state wouldn’t have secrets or national security justifications based on secrecy. There would be no need for a FOIA. No silly executive power nonsense based on saving face, it would be more mechanical than mystical and there would be no face to save.
From a disabled person in the third world to a US President all would have strong privacy rights. No more worrying about corporations snooping on private email.
No corporations pointing cameras at people on at work, the firm would have to spend on better inventory control
For get about auditing, everything would be open and updated continuously.
Forget about financial gossip or credit reporting, they can do it the old fashioned way. Debt is no substitute for increases in the standard or living. .
With regard to net neutrality, this is a natural result of a ban on secrecy and strong support for privacy. A telecom firm couldn’t develop an automated method to blight out millions of sites with slow loading at strategic times (run up to elections or routinely) because that would be an attempt to create secrecy. Firms whose business models depended on blocking access or suppressing information or trying to unnecessarily elevate the cost of access would be illegal because across class information asymmetry manipulations are attempts to create a defacto secrecy. Personally I’d hope these sorts of attempts would carry the same sort of criminal penalties that voter fraud does, well strengthen both.
I like these kinds of arguments and would like to see them discussed more often because when we for instance talk about strong internet neutrality we also need to be talking about Open Search and mandatory default “opt in settings.” We really need to be presenting the package of options and pushing for more than we can expect and making the unfavorable comparisons. This is a kind of punch through effect. It should also be more linked up with Green Party and alternative parties, no Democrat that signed the net neutrality opposition letter is actually a Democrat. Signing that letter seems to point to malevolence, sociopathy, or gross negligence- or all three.
Some of what we call now call 'secret,' is actually private. Consider that anonymous speech is actually critical to empowered privacy. Also that minimal identification that provides ease of use and plausible deniability are crucial to feeling comfortable and having practical privacy in a virtual world.
Insider info is clearly just an attempt at blatant self enrichment at the expense of others and would actually be made harder or even much harder by real time total transparency.
Witness protection; again that’s enhanced privacy first and foremost and any part that looks secretive about it is just designed to concretely protect the empowerment of all individuals.
New cures for the 3rd world, again no problem, IP never really gets off the ground. There’s no need to kill existent patents just let them expire or accelerate their expiration and stop issuing new ones for anything. It seems there are solid ways to suppose that innovation will increase in the absence of IP. Someone wants credit, fine but seemingly original ideas usually have a few sources with no way to get at who was the accidental instrument associated with their emergence.
Authors, like artists can deal with the public domain. We pay you by micro payment or otherwise for your works yet to come, its always an advance to keep up the good work and nothing else. Information in a world with no secrecy is essentially visible and hence free.
Plagiarism? It’s a fools game, for people who fool themselves into non agnostic positions or think that he world isn’t based on something closer to a Platonism or Idealism… again public domain and so what, the author is never really an originator that’s for foolish people that believe that localized bits of gray matter create things or that DNA is all that central or a blue print both are delusions of profit and power?
Privacy comes out of the public space and returns to it so there is an interdependence even as individual privacy is fragile and temporary and must be tended. The private sector is made up of public companies and public companies need to be transparent. The only real private sector is part of the life of the individual, all else is public or becomes so. What is public depends on healthy privacy.
Its possible that part of what Rawls was getting at was an equality in privacy. Those actors who were to craft a society they would then live in faced something like privacy with regard to the hypothetical lives they had to work with. They couldn’t know ahead of time the identities of people who would fill society’s rolls. They couldn’t tell what roll they or those they cared about would end up with personally. On the basis of their own self interest they had to try to rule out private hells and this helped the private sphere as foundation for the public sphere. The couldn’t just think about doing the least harm to those in the most vulnerable positions they had to create structure that would produce the best possible results for persons who might find them selves in such rolls. It seems “structure” might not be the right word for something that would be built out of elbow room and continual improvement.
Both the Constitution and the work of Rawls’ seemed aimed (at least in part) at balancing the public and private and working with problem of facing arbitrary scarcity at birth. As we approach birth the whole of society is a private matter to us, would we want it to be filled with roiling private hells all of which are available but long since swept under the carpet?
Ending secrecy and empowering with privacy may be a way to get at problematic aspects of political representation? Make sponsorship in all of its forms illegal and the related problems with lobbying and puffing will go as well. Sponsorship is a kind of bribery. Sometimes there is disclosure, but that’s a kind of loss leader for the insidious collusion and bribery that in practice dampens speech. This could prevent moneyed interests from getting the kind of power over discourse that money should never be able to buy.
No secrecy in contract, no non disclosure agreements, no corporate veil, no intellectual property protections, no state secrets, no classified or need to know anything. All of this stuff is uses secrecy to remove the ultimately nullify the privacy and voice of the individual.
In the IP sphere it time to do public research and hand the fruits out to all comers foreign and domestic. Firms can differentiate and incentivize on the basis of process, they just don’t get anything exclusive and certainly no exclusivity supported by law. Artists can go public domain they will make more. Society isn’t getting its return on equity from profit based incentive mechanisms so profit can fend for itself, die or become useful. It may be that society can get on without profit (or much of it) and we don’t need a Steve Perlman or Steve Jobs acting as the loss leader for a million miscreants.
It doesn’t matter if we were doing the original Manhattan project, our attitude should be: you may see exactly what we are doing but that doesn’t mean you can stop us or even get their first. This doesn’t mean we would point stuff out we just wouldn’t be allowing or expecting secrecy. It doesn’t matter if the rabble doesn’t’ understand, they can choose education.
It solves the insanity of torture. There would be no inane attempts to justify torture because stuff would always be obvious and we would expect people to tell the enemy everything and our people would know they wouldn’t have the luxury of any assumed secrecy because we wouldn’t allow for it. The state wouldn’t have secrets or national security justifications based on secrecy. There would be no need for a FOIA. No silly executive power nonsense based on saving face, it would be more mechanical than mystical and there would be no face to save.
From a disabled person in the third world to a US President all would have strong privacy rights. No more worrying about corporations snooping on private email.
No corporations pointing cameras at people on at work, the firm would have to spend on better inventory control
For get about auditing, everything would be open and updated continuously.
Forget about financial gossip or credit reporting, they can do it the old fashioned way. Debt is no substitute for increases in the standard or living. .
With regard to net neutrality, this is a natural result of a ban on secrecy and strong support for privacy. A telecom firm couldn’t develop an automated method to blight out millions of sites with slow loading at strategic times (run up to elections or routinely) because that would be an attempt to create secrecy. Firms whose business models depended on blocking access or suppressing information or trying to unnecessarily elevate the cost of access would be illegal because across class information asymmetry manipulations are attempts to create a defacto secrecy. Personally I’d hope these sorts of attempts would carry the same sort of criminal penalties that voter fraud does, well strengthen both.
I like these kinds of arguments and would like to see them discussed more often because when we for instance talk about strong internet neutrality we also need to be talking about Open Search and mandatory default “opt in settings.” We really need to be presenting the package of options and pushing for more than we can expect and making the unfavorable comparisons. This is a kind of punch through effect. It should also be more linked up with Green Party and alternative parties, no Democrat that signed the net neutrality opposition letter is actually a Democrat. Signing that letter seems to point to malevolence, sociopathy, or gross negligence- or all three.
Some of what we call now call 'secret,' is actually private. Consider that anonymous speech is actually critical to empowered privacy. Also that minimal identification that provides ease of use and plausible deniability are crucial to feeling comfortable and having practical privacy in a virtual world.
Insider info is clearly just an attempt at blatant self enrichment at the expense of others and would actually be made harder or even much harder by real time total transparency.
Witness protection; again that’s enhanced privacy first and foremost and any part that looks secretive about it is just designed to concretely protect the empowerment of all individuals.
New cures for the 3rd world, again no problem, IP never really gets off the ground. There’s no need to kill existent patents just let them expire or accelerate their expiration and stop issuing new ones for anything. It seems there are solid ways to suppose that innovation will increase in the absence of IP. Someone wants credit, fine but seemingly original ideas usually have a few sources with no way to get at who was the accidental instrument associated with their emergence.
Authors, like artists can deal with the public domain. We pay you by micro payment or otherwise for your works yet to come, its always an advance to keep up the good work and nothing else. Information in a world with no secrecy is essentially visible and hence free.
Plagiarism? It’s a fools game, for people who fool themselves into non agnostic positions or think that he world isn’t based on something closer to a Platonism or Idealism… again public domain and so what, the author is never really an originator that’s for foolish people that believe that localized bits of gray matter create things or that DNA is all that central or a blue print both are delusions of profit and power?
Privacy comes out of the public space and returns to it so there is an interdependence even as individual privacy is fragile and temporary and must be tended. The private sector is made up of public companies and public companies need to be transparent. The only real private sector is part of the life of the individual, all else is public or becomes so. What is public depends on healthy privacy.
Its possible that part of what Rawls was getting at was an equality in privacy. Those actors who were to craft a society they would then live in faced something like privacy with regard to the hypothetical lives they had to work with. They couldn’t know ahead of time the identities of people who would fill society’s rolls. They couldn’t tell what roll they or those they cared about would end up with personally. On the basis of their own self interest they had to try to rule out private hells and this helped the private sphere as foundation for the public sphere. The couldn’t just think about doing the least harm to those in the most vulnerable positions they had to create structure that would produce the best possible results for persons who might find them selves in such rolls. It seems “structure” might not be the right word for something that would be built out of elbow room and continual improvement.
Both the Constitution and the work of Rawls’ seemed aimed (at least in part) at balancing the public and private and working with problem of facing arbitrary scarcity at birth. As we approach birth the whole of society is a private matter to us, would we want it to be filled with roiling private hells all of which are available but long since swept under the carpet?