RE: Bruce Sterling's talk at CFP

[Blanc Weber <blancw@microsoft.com>]

I'm glad that Bruce Sterling made the comments which he did, in that 
gathering of the right people to hear these statements.

Although he sounds as though he thinks that everyone ought to be their 
brother's keeper, I think the paragraphs below do point out the 
hypocrisy in worrying about the gravity of what could be communicated 
in a telephone conversation or over the net that might result in 
advancing a criminal act, when

"People stumble through the streets of every city in this country 
absolutely wrapped in the grip of demons, groping at passersby for a 
moment's attention and pity and not getting it."

The contrast between cries for safety legislation and the abhorent 
conditions under which many live, do not demonstrate a delicate 
sensitivity towards higher standards of functioning which could make 
one sympathize with the alarms about opening up a pandora's box of 
crime, in such a climate of seeming disconcern for the sufferings of 
the individual.  Who is being saved from what, and who really cares?  
If the answers to these questions are not resolved, then what sense 
does it make to put such alarms into a non-existent context.

"There may be securicams running 24 hours a day all around us,  but 
mechanical surveillance is not the same as people actually getting 
attention or care."

And it's not the same as actually knowing what is important to an 
individual, and it does not  convince that, although truly important 
values which could build up a society are being neglected, attending to 
these exceptional threats to safety will keep everyone from total disaster.

"You want to impress me with your deep concern for children?  This is 
Chicago!  Go down to the Projects and rescue some children from being 
terrorized and recruited by crack gangs who wouldn't know a modem if it 
bit them on the ass!"

Another convincing demonstration of efficacy in responding in a 
coordinated fashion to the safety requirements of a great society, 
protecting the sacredness of vulnerable littel children, the purity of 
the moral atmosphere, and being of practical use to all.  Maybe I could 
appreciate someone's deep concern for my safety, but yet be unconvinced 
of the consequential benefit of their ministrations when there is so 
much evidence to the contrary.

I wouldn't make the points which B. Sterling made in quite the same 
way, but he did present the message to our "guardians" that they are 
not pulling the wool over *every*one's eyes, that their hypocricy is 
patent, and that their motives are ridiculous about their proposed 
goodwill to mankind.

Blanc