Information technology judiiciary.

[Nick Thompson]

Pamela,

I think there is a difference between a political discussion in which we
all ideologically flatulate one one where we, as experts, contribute to
clarifying a problem that the rest of the world totally misunderstands.  

>From a technical stand point, does the idea of a IT-Judiciary make sense???

Nick


> [Original Message]
> From: Pamela McCorduck <pamela at well.com>
> To: <nickthompson at earthlink.net>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>

> Date: 8/8/2007 1:37:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Information technology judiiciary.
>
> Nick. I share your outrage--was just on the phone to an old pal who
> used to be John Kerry's legislative director.  Those supine Democrats!  
> I hate to give up my right to vote in a primary, but I'm appalled by
> both parties right now, and certainly don't feel I belong to the
> Democrats, who not only gave away my civil protections, but also my
> money to agri-biz, while my own senator is giving it away to the hedge
> fund boys.  This isn't any party I want to be part of.
>
> My pal explained it as "inside the Beltway thinking," which is to say,
> "we can't hand the Republicans this issue right before an election..."  
> Why not?  Why not explain to Americans just what got handed where?
>
> I don't want to turn FRIAM into a political bulletin board, so perhaps
> I should simply say that yes, I agree that data mining presents very
> different issues, and needs some imaginative ideas for privacy
> protection.
>
> P.
>
>
> On Aug 8, 2007, at 2:09 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>
> > All,?
> > ?
> > I feel like "WE"? (by which I mean you-all) have something to
> > contribute to?the current?discussion on warrantless wire taps.? ? Note
> > the Washington Post, below.? Does anybody else agree that Data Mining
> > needs an entirely different structure of civil rights protections then
> > investigations of person?? Should somebody ( by which I mean you-all)
> > TELL the washington post that??? I mean I assume we would approve of a
> > universal search for "bomb-making materials --frequent holidays in
> > Pakistan") but not for "sexual indescretions?FRIAM members".? The
> > problem is, of course, that civil rights law is designed to protect
> > individuals and we dont know what individuals are involved until we
> > get a hit.?? Some judicial agency has to pass on the SEARCHES.?? What
> > worries me more than national security data mining from a civil rights
> > point of view is the complete freedom taht law enforcement seems to
> > hav!  e for searching in more personal areas.? I think we need? an
> > ITJ?? ... i.e., an Information Technology Judiciary.
> > ?
> > The Democratic-led Congress, more concerned with protecting its
> > political backside than with safeguarding the privacy of American
> > citizens, left town early yesterday after caving in to administration
> > demands that it allow warrantless surveillance of the phone calls and
> > e-mails of American citizens, with scant judicial supervision and no
> > reporting to Congress about how many communications are being
> > intercepted. To call this legislation ill-considered is to give it too
> > much credit: It was scarcely considered at all. Instead, it was
> > strong-armed through both chambers by an administration that seized
> > the opportunity to write its warrantless wiretapping program into
> > law?or, more precisely, to write it out from under any real legal
> > restrictions."
> > ?
> > ?
> > Which of us is going to write the Washington Post?????
> > ?
> > Not me.?? I am just a psychologist.?
> > ?
> > Nick
> > ?
> > ?
> > Nicholas S. Thompson
> > Research Associate, Redfish Group, Santa Fe, NM (nick at redfish.com)
> > Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University
> > (nthompson at clarku.edu)
> > ?
> > ?
> > ?
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
> "Where words prevail not, violence reigns..."
>
>
> Thomas Kyd

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> From a technical stand point, does the idea of a IT-Judiciary make sense???
>  
If laws are made routinely that facilitate certain government officials
to persecute people for no good reason than their political convenience
(e.g. for individuals' public statements), then there is a deeper
problem with our democracy.   I don't see what this condition has to do
with data mining per se, unless the data that is mined is not generally
available (or can be purchased).

[Phil Henshaw-2]

Maybe that's the problem...!     Is there anyone looking for the
organizational 'dark matter' of the physical world, the part not found
as separate bits located on our note pads and in our minds where we
still need to reconnect it all for ourselves?



Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040                      
tel: [phone]                
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
explorations: www.synapse9.com    

[Pamela McCorduck]

On Aug 8, 2007, at 9:09 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

> Pamela,
>
> I think there is a difference between a political discussion in which
> we
> all ideologically flatulate one one where we, as experts, contribute to
> clarifying a problem that the rest of the world totally misunderstands.
>
>> From a technical stand point, does the idea of a IT-Judiciary make
>> sense???
>
> Nick
>

Nick, of course there's a difference, and I apologize for falling  
momentarily onto a path that was more vent than discussion.  Your
question stands.

P.


"Where words prevail not, violence reigns..."


                                Thomas Kyd

[glen ep ropella]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Pamela McCorduck wrote:

> On Aug 8, 2007, at 9:09 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>> I think there is a difference between a political discussion in
>> which we all ideologically flatulate one one where we, as experts,
>> contribute to clarifying a problem that the rest of the world
>> totally misunderstands.
>>
>>> From a technical stand point, does the idea of a IT-Judiciary
>>> make sense???
>
> Nick, of course there's a difference, and I apologize for falling
> momentarily onto a path that was more vent than discussion.  Your
> question stands.

I disagree.  In fact, I think Nick's equation of expressing one's
political/ideological views with flatulence demonstrates Nick's egotism.

Not everyone thinks their opinions are purely factual, as apparently
Nick does.  Experts have just as much gas as ordinary people.  In fact,
most "experts" (particularly those who refer to themselves as "experts")
seem to have WAY more GAS than ordinary people.

So, an IT-Judiciary would essentially be a bunch of pompous ... [cough]
... experts with more flatulence than a normal political/ideological
discussion amongst non-experts.

- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly
enforced. -- Frank Zappa

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGu1CLZeB+vOTnLkoRArcAAJ9qZSnOXkUre+PFa09fSrqhVOuOjACfbLh4
uJP+a52SnkXx14fvFWsT+E0=
=gH39
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Phil Henshaw-2]

Information hints at what to look for in the physical stuff, but always
leaves out more of the description than not.   Consequently a more
complete story comes only from discoveries by someone directly
interacting with the physical stuff.

The reason is that our minds only have the ability to take in and send
out information.  That's better than nothing, but because our minds
can't take in and send out the physical things of the world, nature's
complex physical designs are naturally hidden from our awareness.   The
physical world is naturally 'dark matter' for us, and carefully
discovering and tracing threads of connection in that 'void' located
beyond our information and our imagination, is our only way of patiently
building a picture of what expanse of things are there.




Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040                      
tel: [phone]                
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
explorations: www.synapse9.com    

[Prof David West]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:18:26 -0400, "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
said:
>
 
> The reason is that our minds only have the ability to take in and send
> out information.  That's better than nothing, but because our minds
> can't take in and send out the physical things of the world, nature's
> complex physical designs are naturally hidden from our awareness.   The
> physical world is naturally 'dark matter' for us, and carefully
> discovering and tracing threads of connection in that 'void' located
> beyond our information and our imagination, is our only way of patiently
> building a picture of what expanse of things are there.
>

As a fan of good prose/poetry I find the above nicely written.  As a
"practicing mystic" I strongly disagree with its content.  The
definition of information and "physical things" seem far too narrow.
The paragraph suggests a metaphysics based on the wrong metaphors -
especially the dualism of mind and out-there.

dave west

[Phil Henshaw-2]

Yes, it is intended to break with the idea that what we see, the
information content of things, is what there is.    I interpret the
common experience that 1) the horizon of information almost always moves
with exploration in the particular ways you'd expect if physical things
existed beyond your awareness, and 2) physical systems therefore also
operate without information, as evidence that physical things exist.


Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040                      
tel: [phone]                
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
explorations: www.synapse9.com    

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prof David West [mailto:profwest at fastmail.fm]
> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 2:40 PM
> To: sy at synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] ...like replacing a star with it's 'sparkle'
>
>
>
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:18:26 -0400, "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> said:
> >
>  
> > The reason is that our minds only have the ability to take
> in and send
> > out information.  That's better than nothing, but because our minds
> > can't take in and send out the physical things of the
> world, nature's
> > complex physical designs are naturally hidden from our
> awareness.   The
> > physical world is naturally 'dark matter' for us, and carefully
> > discovering and tracing threads of connection in that
> 'void' located
> > beyond our information and our imagination, is our only way of
> > patiently building a picture of what expanse of things are there.
> >
>
> As a fan of good prose/poetry I find the above nicely
> written.  As a "practicing mystic" I strongly disagree with
> its content.  The definition of information and "physical
> things" seem far too narrow. The paragraph suggests a
> metaphysics based on the wrong metaphors - especially the
> dualism of mind and out-there.
>
> dave west
>
>