[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Virtual assasins and lethal remailers
Some comments & thoughts on the following statements from Doug
". . . . . It is not a matter of simply discussing and
developing the tools themselves... we should consider how to
achieve desirable long-term stable social dynamics in the
presence of strong crypto."
. "Achieving" social dynamics has the same sound&sense as
social engineering: consciously planning to arrive at a
certain kind of social dynamic - whether a positive kind or
a negative one.
. Assessment/recognition of who has the greater influence over
the flavor of this social dynamic: the tool or the maker, the
designer or the user, the user or the circumstance within which
a need arises:
Liability for the consequences:
- responsibility of the designer, for acting as an agent of
change, for introducing a new element to the storehouse of
tools already available to the social body
- responsibility of the user for having taken up the means at
hand and applying it to suit their own purposes
Or liability for one's presumptions:
- how much influence a person would like to assume over the
minds & psychologies of others
- how much influence an individual or group*should* plan on
exercising upon the social body or its dynamics: is it moral
to plan on determining the type&kind and the measure of
the interactions of the individuals comprising it
"This requires carefully considering sequences of introduction
of various strong crypto tools into society, and predicting
the reactions of society as these tools are introduced."
. This is useful to calculate if you own an enterprise and are
computing the profit which the company might bring in,
depending upon the success of the product in the marketplace
for cool tools.
. This is also useful to calculate if you are planning on
taking over the social dynamic and determining its quality in
the way that one could preside over the development of
. Is it possible to predict & to control precisely enough what
adjustments to make: how well would someone think that they
could know the psychology of all the users in the society and
their reactions to new ways of hiding. I say "all the users",
because if any of them are left out of consideration, then
those not included would constitute elements of surprise which
could upset the certainty of the predictions. With such a
potential for failure, the controls implemented would need to
be complete - total - with no allowance for "free radicals".
. How much can one group really plan on achieving for another
- how much, historically (in the long course of time), have
such attempts at managing a society's acceptance of new
elements ever succeeded and been maintained as a constant,
- how much success should one morally aim for in such an
endeavor, when success would mean displacing the self-control
which the members of that society should be developing over
their own decision-making abilities.
. Otherwise, what actions could be recommended, depending on
whether the responses were positive, negative, or just neutral?
. The responses from the social body would depend upon:
- the kind of people that each of them are;
- the circumstances of their life;
- the occasions for which they might feel the need to use
- i.e., which & how many, of those who were moved to use
crypto, would be the kind who could create a devastating impact
upon the coordinated processes of that society.
- how well prepared "the system" or any of its members would
be to dealing with breaks in the processes; to disturbances in
. Given the above, if all things went well and social
circumstances improved, who would receive the credit;
. but, if anything went wrong, who would be blamed: the
ones who used the fire, or the ones who brought it to them in
the first place.
I know: there would be grass-roots campaigns against fire.