Glen and Marcus -
Technology encourages the concentration of control in the same way that
it encourages the concentration of wealth.
I agree that this *can* happen and often *does* happen. I'd be
interested in a broader discussion of the mechanisms. The "simple"
answers seem obvious to me, but I suspect there are more subtle/complex
ones?
Technology can also ensure privacy, e.g. strong encryption.
I also agree that this can happen. I think the point of asymmetric
warfare, even from the earliest days, this has been true. I *think* a
bow in the hands of a single renegade gave him more leverage than the
entire phalanx of bowmen. They still had all the advantages of scale,
but ... and the classic stories of the American Revolution, all
Guerilla actions, etc.
One perspective is probably simply the differences between centralized
control and distributed control in systems in general?
If we don't see them work to ensure it, then we
can conclude that they don't actually want it.
I think this is a useful warning but I think it misses something. I
think there are forms of complacence and natural asymmetries in the
perception of risk that allow us (encourage?) to exchange the threat we
know (images of planes flying into buildings) for threats we only
imagine (becoming a victim of a dishonest or incompetent (or both) state
security apparatus with too much power and not enough checks/balances).
I think if encryption and anonymizing techniques were made illegal,
it's not even an inference, it's that people have decided not to have
privacy.
Or they have allowed themselves to be convinced that A) the threats from
terrorism, etc are greater than the threats from loss of privacy; or B)
that their privacy is already lost, they might as well have
"security". A slippery slope to be sure.
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
