|
|
| Author |
Message |
font
|
|
A Safe Item <but is it?>
| 
Dec 10 03:17 UTC 1997 |
Security....what does it mean?
How much security is too much? How much is not enough? THis is a very broad
item, incompasing everything from computer tech to public space to private
homes. Do we really want to live in an orwellian world, if it means we can
be safe? How do you feel about airport security? How much would you take
before you felt like a criminal for existing?
Do you want your government to have your password? Do you want to have to
tell the FBI all of your purchases, so as to remove the evil menace from the
world? How much would you give up to make your life completely safe????
|
| 22 responses total. |
raven
|
|
response 1 of 22:
|
Dec 10 22:15 UTC 1997 |
Too much safety is like too much tofu without curry, bland. I do wonder
what has happened to the spirit of adventure or even fun in this country.
There was a big announcemnt on the PA at the school I was teaching at
today that not only werte the kids not allowed to throw snowballs but they
couldn't pick the snow off the ground in any circumstances. Give me a
break even such standards of wholsomness as the "Peanuts" comic strips
feature (used to feature?) snowball fights and snow forts. I think this
sort of attitude is becoming much more common than it was a generation ago
(see my item on public spaces in the cyberpunk conf). I furthur think
it's ironic that it's the baby boom generation that is brining us this
uptightness, the same generation that celebrated sex, drugs and rock &
roll in it's youth.
This item now linked to the cyberpunk conf.
|
void
|
|
response 2 of 22:
|
Dec 11 10:52 UTC 1997 |
a lot of that is generated by fear of frivolous-yet-successful
lawsuits.
|
agent86
|
|
response 3 of 22:
|
Dec 12 00:47 UTC 1997 |
I don't think telling the FBI about all my purchases will provide me any more
safety. It will, however, provide an easy means of passing some sort of
cursory (and likely inaccurate) judgement about my character.
Those who want to commit crimes will just find some way of masking them, and
then you legitimate types will find your liberties slowly encroached upon.
(Just so ya'll know, I am a staunch supporter of some form of gun control,
I don't think that limiting the variety of weapons available to us apes really
limits our rights too much).
The only way to provide true "security" is to have someone standing over you
at all times monitoring your actions. Of course, then they would become
corrupt. All federal "anti-terrorism" bills do is provide a false sense of
security, especially when they really upon flaky tecnologies like lie
detectors, chemical sniffers, and chemical fingerprinting of weapons
components.
|
scott
|
|
response 4 of 22:
|
Dec 12 12:20 UTC 1997 |
No, it's not that "Big Brother" can become corrupt... it's that you then have
somebody standing over you, which takes away your freedom. Do you have to
notify that monitor about vacations? Give them priority in scheduling?
|
font
|
|
response 5 of 22:
|
Dec 12 20:35 UTC 1997 |
So, scott, how do you feel about that? (just curious)
|
font
|
|
response 6 of 22:
|
Dec 12 20:42 UTC 1997 |
By nature, "Big Brother" is corrupt. I believe that one can't come to power
in any society without using some measure of it...esp to get as many people
to believe in one person, to get enough coverage to have those people know
about you, etc. It is sorta human nature to be corrupt, just as it is human
nature to be regulatory. I mean, where would rebels be without a main stream
to rebel agianst? Where would hackers be without incryption or companies who
don't want them there? Would any of this exist? it would almost follow that
it would take humans to be less intelegent for them to all get along in peace
and light. Now just because I make this assertion, doesn't mean that I *like*
this thought. It just gives one pause to think about Utopia, how people
invision it, and how people try to implement it. The former soviet union was
a place where everything was watched over and tried with the utmost as far
as resources could streach to be *safe*. *Was* it? What does that say about
human nature and the nature of being safe?
|
scott
|
|
response 7 of 22:
|
Dec 13 02:19 UTC 1997 |
Depends on your defn. of corruption, I suppose. I'm not generally in favor
of excess surveillance, but I like the idea that bad people will get caught.
I think it is possible to do the above without corruption, as long as the
watchers are watched as well. Think about a small town where *nobody* closes
their shades at night, for fear that others will think they are hiding some
secret perversion.
|
font
|
|
response 8 of 22:
|
Dec 14 01:58 UTC 1997 |
scott: I think you should read about the confusian ideal, or the system they
had in pre-comunist china. It was every member of a family's duty to watch
another member of the family, and then another member who watched over those
ten people and on and on untill you had the first family (ie the emperors)
who watched over them.
BTW... I like to close my shades at night because it keeps noise and excess
light out of my bedroom. perverse?
|
agent86
|
|
response 9 of 22:
|
Dec 15 07:28 UTC 1997 |
Yes, read what Vanessa suggested or just read _1984_.
I'm remembering a certain passage in that book where a young member of the
"Junior Anti-sex Leauge" turned in his father for thought-crimes...
General public surveillance is the best possible form of security, though.
It is why I feel safe walking down an alley in Ann Arbor at 3am -- there are
always plenty of people around, and odds are at least a few of them are
respectable individuals ;)
Scott, your comment about corruption being avoidable if someone watches the
watchers is preposterous. Who would do this, and why wouldn't *they* become
corrupt? Don't say that the public would watch the watchers. As can be plainly
seen, the "watchers" are interested in secrecy to enable them to work
correctly. Look at the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and the USSS. Consider, if
you will, the sheer number of documents that the government has
classified, that will not be available even for a request of
declassification under FOIA for half a _century_. Such a level of secrecy
is *neccessary* for two things in this world: Police work (to protect
agents), and corruption (to protect ???). Not only is it *neccesary*, but
it promotes the growth of both.
|
scott
|
|
response 10 of 22:
|
Dec 19 12:19 UTC 1997 |
Your stuck in the idea that only certain people are "watchers". What if we
are *all* watchers? I watch you, you watch me, and when downtown we each
watch the others around us. Nobody is allowed to manufacture or own curtains
or blinds.
|
agent86
|
|
response 11 of 22:
|
Dec 19 22:22 UTC 1997 |
NO I AM NOT -- you need to have SOME authority figure, or central
controller. It is essential that all police work have some level of
security and secrecy to it, meaning that _we all can't be watchers_.
|
agent86
|
|
response 12 of 22:
|
Dec 19 22:24 UTC 1997 |
Hmmm. Who was it who said "Governments can't exist without secrets" ? I am
pretty sure it *wasn't* Fox Mulder -- at least not originally :)
|
scott
|
|
response 13 of 22:
|
Dec 19 23:13 UTC 1997 |
Why do the police need to involved in the surveillance? How about if we are
all just paranoid about the other people?
|
agent86
|
|
response 14 of 22:
|
Dec 20 10:10 UTC 1997 |
Oh, yeah, *that* sounds real healthy. Mass paranoia about everyone is why the
country is in such dregs right now. It is at least partially responsible for
the massive degree of seperation that exists between the races and classes
in this country right now. It is why people are afraid to leave their houses
at night.
In areas like this, such paranoia is idiotic, and serves to promote crime.
If more people were out after dark (which would occur if people were less like
monkeys and weren't afraid of the dark, or less like lemmings and willing to
actually do something that is not advised by the evening news), then people
would automatically be watching each other to some degree, though I hope it
would be "paranoic."
Let me urge all paranoic monkey-lemmings to climb back into the trees or walk
off a cliff. Or combine the two, and walk off a cliff into a tree :)
Let me say, I feel as you do (and as anyone who understands one whit about
bottlenecks and weakest links does), that general self policing is the only
uncorruptible method of police work. BUT -- and this is another problem --
how do you deal with special situations like organized crime? hostage
situations? General self policing is great for decreasing the amount of street
crime, but their are many situations that require _a central police
authority_, and _this_ is where corruption occurs anyways (especially in my
organized crime example).
Oh, and let me ask you something: If self policing was instituted, would _you_
actually help to promote it? When is the last time you got up off your ass
when you heard someone screaming down the street? Would _you_ go dashing off
to pull an armed rapist off a woman? To stop a robbery?
Most people, whether they like to admit it or not, are VERY FUCKING APATHETIC.
(I am proud to say that I am not. I have successfully pulled off a couple John
Wayne acts, but this is just cuz I am a teenager on a hormone high, and not
'cause i am a nice person).
These are a few of the reasons that self-policing does not work, and
definitely not in this country.
(PLEASE do not site Japan as an example. As _any_ social scientist can tell
you, crime increases with stress, which increases inversely with an areas
economy. Japan is no exception... crime has sky-rocketed there lately).
One more thing: if you are so interested in being paranoid about your
neighbors, let me suggest that you move into a state prison. Low crime rate,
plenty of control and monitoring, plenty of police, and _you_ get to help
police the place. You don't seem too interested in much freedom, so enjoy!
The rent isn't too bad, either.
(Oooh! Check out my acerbic wit!) ;)
-drew
|
scott
|
|
response 15 of 22:
|
Dec 20 13:37 UTC 1997 |
Hey, I never said it was a perfect system... ;)
Probably none of us would really do well to keep such a system running. It
is really what small towns can be like, though. It *is* what our very
primitive ancestors used, though. Eventually they figured out how to
specialize and have certain people do the enforcenment. But still, you *can*
call 911 if you hear gunshots in the next house, right? So you really are
an observer in the current system, morally obligated to at least tell somebody
that there is a disturbance going on. (I never said that we were responsible
for enforcing, just observation)
|
agent86
|
|
response 16 of 22:
|
Dec 20 19:47 UTC 1997 |
OK, that makes sense.
A lot of people, sad to say, are too apathetic to even do that. That is why
women are trained to yell "Fire!" instead of "Help!" or "Rape!" in
self-defense classes.
I personally think you are right, that observation is the best method to keep
society in line, but people are often quick to judge (and often arrive at
incorrect conclusions). This, at least, is something that our current
legal system isn't prone to. Sure, people get shafted, but at least its
good honest corruption instead of malice or ignorance (I suppose that you
can probably begin to figure out my morals now). If people aren't allowed
to have any privacy, the only result will be witch-hunts.
I don't like small town mentality for this very reason: any subtle
differences are met with hostility and scorn. People should have their
privacy, so that they are allowed to be judged on their contribution to
society instead of their private life. I suppose the beauty of apathy is
that this is much more likely to occur.
(Ypsilanti is at that incredibly ackward stage in its growth where its not
small enough to have that friendly-small-town-feel, but not quite big
enough to have the quite appathy that you need to ensure everyone their
privacy.... on the other hand, Ann Arbor seems to have a significant chunk
of its population that is able to pride itself on being apathetic, even at
the same time as it becomes a Yuppie town more-over everyday).
Well, I am done ranting now.
:)
|
scott
|
|
response 17 of 22:
|
Dec 21 00:47 UTC 1997 |
Right. I wouldn't like the small-town mutual surveillance system either, for
nearly the same reasons. I like the option to be different, even if I might
not take advantage of it.
|
font
|
|
response 18 of 22:
|
Dec 21 09:43 UTC 1997 |
you go guys! this has been a facinating read!
|
agent86
|
|
response 19 of 22:
|
Dec 24 06:55 UTC 1997 |
Awww, you _know_ is sister ;)
|
font
|
|
response 20 of 22:
|
Dec 28 09:56 UTC 1997 |
is that an ascii warm fuzzy? :-)
|
agent86
|
|
response 21 of 22:
|
Dec 30 01:30 UTC 1997 |
most definitely :)
|
maus
|
|
response 22 of 22:
|
May 22 19:45 UTC 2007 |
quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
|
