Friam

Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

Classic

List

Threaded

29 messages Options

Jochen Fromm-5

Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

In the age of social media and social networks
privacy has become an issue of intense debate.
Privacy means an individual has the right to be
secure from unauthorized disclosure of information
about oneself.

Now if a state has "state secrets", is this
fundamentally different from privacy issues for
the individual (only for the state)? Should
a state in a democracy have any real secrets
at all? And if the state has the right to prevent
invasion of privacy, shouldn't the individual
have the same right, too?

It is clearly evil what Wikileaks has done recently,
they went to far this time. But too much censorship
and secrecy is not a good idea, either (as the
"top secret america" investigation from the
Washington Post showed). What do you think?

-J.

============================================================
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

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

Fixed that for you. Opinions are always welcomed.

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote:

In the age of social media and social networks
privacy has become an issue of intense debate.
Privacy means an individual has the right to be secure from unauthorized disclosure of information about oneself.

Now if a state has "state secrets", is this fundamentally different from privacy issues for
the individual (only for the state)? Should
a state in a democracy have any real secrets
at all? And if the state has the right to prevent invasion of privacy, shouldn't the individual have the same right, too?

In my opinion, It is clearly evil what Wikileaks has done recently,
and I think they went to far this time. But too much censorship
and secrecy is not a good idea, either (as the "top secret america" investigation from the Washington Post showed). What do you think?

-J.

============================================================
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

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
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

Owen Densmore

Re: Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

Administrator

What were the really egregious evils they did? I confess to not reading them all.

-- Owen

On Dec 7, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

Fixed that for you. Opinions are always welcomed.

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote:

In the age of social media and social networks
privacy has become an issue of intense debate.
Privacy means an individual has the right to be secure from unauthorized disclosure of information about oneself.

Now if a state has "state secrets", is this fundamentally different from privacy issues for
the individual (only for the state)? Should
a state in a democracy have any real secrets
at all? And if the state has the right to prevent invasion of privacy, shouldn't the individual have the same right, too?

In my opinion, It is clearly evil what Wikileaks has done recently,
and I think they went to far this time. But too much censorship
and secrecy is not a good idea, either (as the "top secret america" investigation from the Washington Post showed). What do you think?

-J.

============================================================
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

glen ropella

Re: Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

In reply to this post by Jochen Fromm-5

Jochen Fromm wrote circa 10-12-07 01:41 PM:
> Now if a state has "state secrets", is this fundamentally different from
> privacy issues for
> the individual (only for the state)? Should
> a state in a democracy have any real secrets
> at all? And if the state has the right to prevent invasion of privacy,
> shouldn't the individual have the same right, too?

I don't think so. I think the whole "corporations are people" concept
is flawed. And the state is just another form of corporation, at least
it usually seems that way. I also don't think it has much to do with
the political system (democracy or not). I think there's a fundamental
difference between an organism, like a human, and a collection of
organisms. I suppose the interesting cases are things like lichen,
biofilms, aspen groves, etc. As with the backscatter machines and tsa
pat-downs, Wikileaks' actions will be beneficial as a foil for how we
feel about these issues.

> It is clearly evil what Wikileaks has done recently,
> they went to far this time. But too much censorship
> and secrecy is not a good idea, either (as the "top secret america"
> investigation from the Washington Post showed). What do you think?

As a whistle-blower organization, they went too far. As far as I know,
no illegal or unethical activity was exposed by the cables. It's like
the paparazzi for diplomats. But as a foreign transparency advocate,
they did the right thing. They did not commit any crimes and they
published, as journalists, what they thought the (global) public ought
to know. Even exposing potential targets for attack is no worse than,
for example, me posting the results of running nmap on Owen's machine,
or white hat hackers blogging about Microsoft vulnerabilities. The
enemy is the secrecy, not the facts.

--
glen

============================================================
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

Owen Densmore

Re: Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

Administrator

> It's like the paparazzi for diplomats.

Well done!

-- Owen

============================================================
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

James Steiner

Re: Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

In reply to this post by Jochen Fromm-5

It's my belief that individual privacy is entirely NOT the same as government classification (as secret, top secret, etc) of information.

Governments do NOT have a "right of privacy". Our government is supposed to be "by, of, and for" the people. It's use of secrecy is appropriate (and should be protected) when that secrecy serves to protect those people, not when it serves to protect the individuals who do the classifying (or those they serve) from embarrassment or legal prosecution.

Such uses are (and I'm pretty sure this is not just my opinion), illegal.

We all kind of "knew" that classification has been used this way. We all hear or see or read anecdotes. Well, the Irag war papers proved it. As have all the subsequent leaks.

I think that until the government and all its agents demonstrate that they can use the tool of keeping secrets correctly, that they should not be allowed to keep secrets.

Wikileaks has done the American People a great service. Now I hope that they (we) are smart enough, and outraged enough, to move to fix what's broken. (IMHO, that's congress / campaign finance / influence peddling).

~~James

www.turtlezero.com

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote:

In the age of social media and social networks
privacy has become an issue of intense debate.
Privacy means an individual has the right to be secure from unauthorized disclosure of information about oneself.

Now if a state has "state secrets", is this fundamentally different from privacy issues for
the individual (only for the state)? Should
a state in a democracy have any real secrets
at all? And if the state has the right to prevent invasion of privacy, shouldn't the individual have the same right, too?

It is clearly evil what Wikileaks has done recently,
they went to far this time. But too much censorship
and secrecy is not a good idea, either (as the "top secret america" investigation from the Washington Post showed). What do you think?

-J.

Vladimyr Burachynsky

Re: Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

States are symbolic, people are real.

The collective of people creates a symbolic entity (Not Real) called the State, which may or may not represent the entire collective.

The people within the collective agree that they are to assume the obligation or burden of Rights for the members. Individuals will implement the Rights when required. That agreement between the members of the collective sustains the State or so it appears. At other times it seems fear drives the state into cohesion with variable results. Homogeneous beliefs seem to be required, hence all the effort into reeducating the masses(In fact most states are created by a small group and the rest of the collective has been duped or forced into agreement, hence the symbolic “People’s Affirmation”)

( Nevertheless, the lie was there at the very birth of the state. Now we inheritors of the duped are going to claim to have been partners in the experiment. Which deceit will stand “that the usurpers were speaking for all” , or “that the duped really knew what was happening to them”)

The state being purely symbolic has no arms legs or appetites of its own. States have no power by themselves. Yet the creators of the state have been transformed into mere objects enthralled enslaved by the state.(Citizens, Voters, Clients, Soldiers, but never the creators of the state.) Even the creators are becoming symbolic and we individuals are demoted continually as institutions need more authority to treat us as objects (TSA). We as individuals are the inheritors of the original collective agreement not some other worldly heroes of distant pasts. At this moment every citizen has inherited the same obligations and commitments as the original collective. But many accept the role assigned as an object to avoid bearing the burden of those ancient obligations. Willful self enslavement. We still expect the Rights to be delivered but are unwilling to act on the obligations. So we are turning ourselves into objects and everywhere we have others helping us metamorphose into simulacrums of real people.

Perhaps what has happened lately is that the state apparatus (a minor collective of real people) has suborned the Symbol and has replaced the original mandates with its own (Violence is not required, the symbol remains unchanged but the meaning or contract is altered through design). Hence the need for the minor collective to preserve secrecy but rationalized as a need of the State. The major collective is unaware of the usurpation of the symbol for other purposes. Therefore democracy as with justice has become purely symbolic and no amount of revolution in the symbolic realm can change the real structure behind the symbols. Which is protected by secrecy. All the provisions within the original collective agreement have evolved away from reality into symbolic states. Money for instance. ( It has benefits but also detrimental affects as in the case of Health Care or Justice)

This seems to be what some have called the Post Political era. The consequence of PoMo which annihilated the distinguishing features of symbolism and reality.

Populism is a reaction to the hollowing out of the contract, however anger is not a plan. Rage does not build schools.

Rather than play in a symbolic sandbox called democracy we need to find a means to renegotiate our collective agreements and stop accepting empty rhetoric as substance.

We need a real democracy not a symbolic fabrication. It has been years since I have seen a legitimate election; Haiti and Ivory Coast are farces. No wonder many in the developing world mock the American initiative to support symbolic democracy.

This situation can be reversed with no need for blood shed. We only need to re-establish our presence as real people, Human beings. We must Our innate gullibility makes us all victims of others. They have become so reliant on secrecy that they themselves have forgotten the truth and that results in serious errors for everyone (2008 Crash) We need to abandon scapegoats and symbolic realities. The entire structure of our institutions are based on deceits going back centuries in some cases.

The foundation of many states is based on some historic atrocity. The symbolic state requires the peculiar amnesia about that crime and the question may arise that the original secret reality is the cause of the state’s own collapse. As far as I am aware only one current state acknowledges the crimes of the past and that is Germany. I may be wrong here but for some reason we have never attempted using honesty historically and the result seems to be a legacy of turmoil.

On another related note, Assange’s charges are the most peculiar renditions of rape I have ever heard described. A broken prophylactic seems to be the sole supporting claim. There was consent, no violence, no coercion, the act was agreeable to both parties and only in retrospect was the charge of rape adopted almost as a reprisal for an obvious accident. I was always under the impression that rape as defined by law must be based on one party taking away the other party’s freedom of choice by some means(Drugs, threats , force, deception?). Oh in the second case it appears that both parties were in a state of sleep when it happened!. Additionally both women were in communication for some period before making formal charges(Appears as collusion or conspiracy) ( I can see why the charges were dropped the first time, accidents, stupidity and unconsciousness are slim bases for charges) Perhaps a charge of negligence ( or stupidity, public mischief) could be leveled at all parties and we be done with the matter. Heaven forbid we start filling jails with stupid people. Please add any legal opinions on such a situation. Both women invited Assange into their homes and later had regrets which they needed to parade before the world as they sincerely claimed to be victims not in any way responsible for their own decisions. I have a philosophical problem with this scenario, as a pro-feminist, equality always implied that responsibility was equal as well. How can two entities be equal under the law if one is never responsible for its actions and decisions? (Hence we accept that children are not equal to adults) ( ( Is this symbolic Justice or Greek Comedy ?)

End the stupidity of secrecy, let us start acting like grown ups for a change.

It seems conclusive to me that most conspiracy theories can be attributed to Gross Stupidity and the Secrecy imparts an air of reasoning where none exists. ( We refuse to believe some affairs are complete and utter nonsense, hence all the sightings of Jesus in concrete stains. Our brains impart patterns where none exists) How much effort is expended to reveal that some agency was incompetent or stupid (Air India, Lockerbie Bombing). The agents within our states depend upon the delusion that we believe they are smarter than us (They are professionals we are the helots).

Let us begin by cleaning the house. Most men would prefer to dispense with all the nonsense given a choice.

Housecleaning as a populist revolutionary political movement just requires some PR work. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the states but the unelected rats have to controlled.

Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky

Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology)

120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd.

Winnipeg, Manitoba

CANADA R2J 3R2

(204) 2548321 Phone/Fax

[hidden email]

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of James Steiner
Sent: December 7, 2010 8:21 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

It's my belief that individual privacy is entirely NOT the same as government classification (as secret, top secret, etc) of information.

Such uses are (and I'm pretty sure this is not just my opinion), illegal.

We all kind of "knew" that classification has been used this way. We all hear or see or read anecdotes. Well, the Irag war papers proved it. As have all the subsequent leaks.

I think that until the government and all its agents demonstrate that they can use the tool of keeping secrets correctly, that they should not be allowed to keep secrets.

~~James

www.turtlezero.com

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote:

In the age of social media and social networks
privacy has become an issue of intense debate.
Privacy means an individual has the right to be secure from unauthorized disclosure of information about oneself.

Now if a state has "state secrets", is this fundamentally different from privacy issues for
the individual (only for the state)? Should
a state in a democracy have any real secrets
at all? And if the state has the right to prevent invasion of privacy, shouldn't the individual have the same right, too?

It is clearly evil what Wikileaks has done recently,
they went to far this time. But too much censorship
and secrecy is not a good idea, either (as the "top secret america" investigation from the Washington Post showed). What do you think?

-J.

Vladimyr Burachynsky

Re: Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

In reply to this post by James Steiner

Assange’s actions are having tremendous subsidiary repercussions.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20101208/wikileaks-threat-toronto-woman-101208/

The secrecy advocates are becoming so belligerent and unable to disguise the true motives.

Now they threaten housewives that can read and write.

Does Flanagan have something to hide ?

Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky

Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology)

120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd.

Winnipeg, Manitoba

CANADA R2J 3R2

(204) 2548321 Phone/Fax

[hidden email]

It's my belief that individual privacy is entirely NOT the same as government classification (as secret, top secret, etc) of information.

Such uses are (and I'm pretty sure this is not just my opinion), illegal.

We all kind of "knew" that classification has been used this way. We all hear or see or read anecdotes. Well, the Irag war papers proved it. As have all the subsequent leaks.

I think that until the government and all its agents demonstrate that they can use the tool of keeping secrets correctly, that they should not be allowed to keep secrets.

~~James

www.turtlezero.com

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote:

In the age of social media and social networks
privacy has become an issue of intense debate.
Privacy means an individual has the right to be secure from unauthorized disclosure of information about oneself.

Now if a state has "state secrets", is this fundamentally different from privacy issues for
the individual (only for the state)? Should
a state in a democracy have any real secrets
at all? And if the state has the right to prevent invasion of privacy, shouldn't the individual have the same right, too?

It is clearly evil what Wikileaks has done recently,
they went to far this time. But too much censorship
and secrecy is not a good idea, either (as the "top secret america" investigation from the Washington Post showed). What do you think?

-J.

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

It's not the "reading and writing" abilities that the folks in charge are so worried about so much as the "thinking" thing. The US government, and presumably the Canadian one too would no doubt be much happier if the masses just believed the official government line that WikiLeaks and Assange engaged in criminal activity.

You know, what we need now is a "Canadian Sarah Palin" to help bring our two countries closer in sync, Vladimyr.

--Doug

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky <[hidden email]> wrote:

Assange’s actions are having tremendous subsidiary repercussions.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20101208/wikileaks-threat-toronto-woman-101208/

The secrecy advocates are becoming so belligerent and unable to disguise the true motives.

Now they threaten housewives that can read and write.

Does Flanagan have something to hide ?

Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky

Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology)

120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd.

Winnipeg, Manitoba

CANADA R2J 3R2

(204) 2548321 Phone/Fax

[hidden email]

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of James Steiner
Sent: December 7, 2010 8:21 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

It's my belief that individual privacy is entirely NOT the same as government classification (as secret, top secret, etc) of information.

Governments do NOT have a "right of privacy". Our government is supposed to be "by, of, and for" the people. It's use of secrecy is appropriate (and should be protected) when that secrecy serves to protect those people, not when it serves to protect the individuals who do the classifying (or those they serve) from embarrassment or legal prosecution.

Such uses are (and I'm pretty sure this is not just my opinion), illegal.

We all kind of "knew" that classification has been used this way. We all hear or see or read anecdotes. Well, the Irag war papers proved it. As have all the subsequent leaks.

I think that until the government and all its agents demonstrate that they can use the tool of keeping secrets correctly, that they should not be allowed to keep secrets.

Wikileaks has done the American People a great service. Now I hope that they (we) are smart enough, and outraged enough, to move to fix what's broken. (IMHO, that's congress / campaign finance / influence peddling).

~~James

www.turtlezero.com

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote:

In the age of social media and social networks
privacy has become an issue of intense debate.
Privacy means an individual has the right to be secure from unauthorized disclosure of information about oneself.

Now if a state has "state secrets", is this fundamentally different from privacy issues for
the individual (only for the state)? Should
a state in a democracy have any real secrets
at all? And if the state has the right to prevent invasion of privacy, shouldn't the individual have the same right, too?

It is clearly evil what Wikileaks has done recently,
they went to far this time. But too much censorship
and secrecy is not a good idea, either (as the "top secret america" investigation from the Washington Post showed). What do you think?

-J.

Steve Smith

Re: Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

In reply to this post by Vladimyr Burachynsky

Ivan -

Well said, as usual!

States are symbolic, people are real.

Explain that to any or all of the cells in your body. <cringing, waiting for a fresh debate about "emergence">

The collective of people creates a symbolic entity (Not Real) called the State, which may or may not represent the entire collective.

For any significant number of people in the collective, I think the probability of representing the Entire Collective is vanishingly small... but I agree with the spirit... it might actually represent a true majority in some significant way. Might.

( Nevertheless, the lie was there at the very birth of the state. Now we inheritors of the duped are going to claim to have been partners in the experiment. Which deceit will stand “that the usurpers were speaking for all” , or “that the duped really knew what was happening to them”)

Well said.

The state being purely symbolic has no arms legs or appetites of its own. States have no power by themselves. Yet the creators of the state have been transformed into mere objects enthralled enslaved by the state.(Citizens, Voters, Clients, Soldiers, but never the creators of the state.) Even the creators are becoming symbolic and we individuals are demoted continually as institutions need more authority to treat us as objects (TSA).

Doesn't stateness and its' institutions, by definition treat us as objects? Isn't that fundamental to the concept?

We as individuals are the inheritors of the original collective agreement not some other worldly heroes of distant pasts. At this moment every citizen has inherited the same obligations and commitments as the original collective. But many accept the role assigned as an object to avoid bearing the burden of those ancient obligations. Willful self enslavement. We still expect the Rights to be delivered but are unwilling to act on the obligations. So we are turning ourselves into objects and everywhere we have others helping us metamorphose into simulacrums of real people.

Well said again...

Perhaps what has happened lately is that the state apparatus (a minor collective of real people) has suborned the Symbol and has replaced the original mandates with its own (Violence is not required, the symbol remains unchanged but the meaning or contract is altered through design).

I don't agree that this is recent... not in the case of the good ole US of A, nor anywhere else... though I think your point, and I take it well, is perhaps that our recent "mandate" of a president (2000-2008) and his cronies and populist mouthpieces were particularly inclined toward this.

Hence the need for the minor collective to preserve secrecy but rationalized as a need of the State. The major collective is unaware of the usurpation of the symbol for other purposes.

Were there minutes kept and published at the 1st Continental Congress (and the subsequent ones)? Was anything elided at any point? More importantly, was there a verbatim transcription, documenting the "out of band" chatter? Surely not. But I suspect there were many side-room conversations which benefited from their privacy along the way... some were overheard and perhaps widely reported, and *that* was part of the process as well.

Therefore democracy as with justice has become purely symbolic and no amount of revolution in the symbolic realm can change the real structure behind the symbols. Which is protected by secrecy. All the provisions within the original collective agreement have evolved away from reality into symbolic states. Money for instance. ( It has benefits but also detrimental affects as in the case of Health Care or Justice)

I'll concede that these symbols have become more abstract, but not that they were ever "reality". Though this may be semantics.

This seems to be what some have called the Post Political era. The consequence of PoMo which annihilated the distinguishing features of symbolism and reality.

Yes, PoPo seems about right... which is odd since the consequence seems to be that everything has become "politicised"... but I think you mean that what passes for Politics is really something else, a thin veneer covering for the real power and decision processes?

Populism is a reaction to the hollowing out of the contract, however anger is not a plan. Rage does not build schools.

Rather than play in a symbolic sandbox called democracy we need to find a means to renegotiate our collective agreements and stop accepting empty rhetoric as substance.

I can get behind that statement, it is very persuasive<grin>!

Seriously... I'm interested in what you might be thinking of when you say "renegotiate our collective agreements" because it has a ring to it that I like and I'd like to ground it out in specifics.

We need a real democracy not a symbolic fabrication. It has been years since I have seen a legitimate election; Haiti and Ivory Coast are farces. No wonder many in the developing world mock the American initiative to support symbolic democracy.

Yes, I'm curious about when that flipped... and I fear it flipped here (US of A) a while back as well. I can't say I've ever voted for any candidate or measure for any other than Symbolic reasons. I helped vote Reagan in as a youth and then 30 years later helped vote Obama in for pretty much identical reasons... based in idealism (including trying to balance my earlier mistake)... though the ideals themselves had changed quite a bit. And yes, the "Democracy" that Amurika! sells is quite mockable. Both our own practice of it and probably much worse, the practices we presumably help set up other places (e.g. Iraq).

This situation can be reversed with no need for blood shed. We only need to re-establish our presence as real people, Human beings. We must Our innate gullibility makes us all victims of others. They have become so reliant on secrecy that they themselves have forgotten the truth and that results in serious errors for everyone (2008 Crash) We need to abandon scapegoats and symbolic realities. The entire structure of our institutions are based on deceits going back centuries in some cases.

I am with you on this as much as I understand it... though I'm not as clear as you might be on how to effect this. I also suggest that our "innate gullibility" is based in our own greed and desire to deceive in the first place. The best way to trick someone is to figure out what *they* are trying to get away with, and snooker them. Sting, Grift, Con...

The foundation of many states is based on some historic atrocity. The symbolic state requires the peculiar amnesia about that crime and the question may arise that the original secret reality is the cause of the state’s own collapse. As far as I am aware only one current state acknowledges the crimes of the past and that is Germany. I may be wrong here but for some reason we have never attempted using honesty historically and the result seems to be a legacy of turmoil.

Interesting (possible) fact... Germany... hmmm... I suppose normally Germany would have been dismembered and fed to the neighbors. I suppose the East/West German split was almost that. Can So Africa be offered as another example?

On another related note, Assange’s charges are the most peculiar renditions of rape I have ever heard described. A broken prophylactic seems to be the sole supporting claim. There was consent, no violence, no coercion, the act was agreeable to both parties and only in retrospect was the charge of rape adopted almost as a reprisal for an obvious accident. I was always under the impression that rape as defined by law must be based on one party taking away the other party’s freedom of choice by some means(Drugs, threats , force, deception?). Oh in the second case it appears that both parties were in a state of sleep when it happened!. Additionally both women were in communication for some period before making formal charges(Appears as collusion or conspiracy) ( I can see why the charges were dropped the first time, accidents, stupidity and unconsciousness are slim bases for charges) Perhaps a charge of negligence ( or stupidity, public mischief) could be leveled at all parties and we be done with the matter. Heaven forbid we start filling jails with stupid people. Please add any legal opinions on such a situation. Both women invited Assange into their homes and later had regrets which they needed to parade before the world as they sincerely claimed to be victims not in any way responsible for their own decisions. I have a philosophical problem with this scenario, as a pro-feminist, equality always implied that responsibility was equal as well. How can two entities be equal under the law if one is never responsible for its actions and decisions? (Hence we accept that children are not equal to adults) ( ( Is this symbolic Justice or Greek Comedy ?)

I'm not sure it is pro-feminist as such, but it does have a punitive and reactionary sense to it.

End the stupidity of secrecy, let us start acting like grown ups for a change.

We (the world, humanity, western civ, the first world, US of A?) seem to be children, never maturing. It is a tenet of animal husbandry and making animals into good pets, that you must do various things to keep them from maturing emotionally. It seems quite likely that in the State's need (metaphorical need) to make us into objects, on route is to domesticate us, and to the extent the State is under the scrutiny and guidance of compassionate humans, it seems that we are become "Pets" (not *just* draft animals).

It seems conclusive to me that most conspiracy theories can be attributed to Gross Stupidity and the Secrecy imparts an air of reasoning where none exists. ( We refuse to believe some affairs are complete and utter nonsense, hence all the sightings of Jesus in concrete stains. Our brains impart patterns where none exists) How much effort is expended to reveal that some agency was incompetent or stupid (Air India, Lockerbie Bombing). The agents within our states depend upon the delusion that we believe they are smarter than us (They are professionals we are the helots).

I'm pretty sure there are agents of the state who *are* smarter than me... but not a lot of them and not a lot smarter... but maybe more important than being smarter than me (sometimes), they are dedicated to their cause, I am not. I spend a few seconds every day trying to figure out how I do/should/might relate to the state... those agents spend *all day* and in some cases, most of the night trying to figure out how to leverage their power over me into more power over me... even if I was much smarter than *all* of them, they might yet have an advantage! Until their power over me gets close to the imbalance say between the Coyote and the Cottontail, I'm likely to be careless in the extreme... all fat and happy munching on the blades of green in the field. This advantage reverses when it is the difference between *having a meal* and *becoming a meal*... which is why various "resistance" movements area always so powerful, hard to crush.

Let us begin by cleaning the house. Most men would prefer to dispense with all the nonsense given a choice.

Housecleaning as a populist revolutionary political movement just requires some PR work. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the states but the unelected rats have to controlled.

I agree with starting with simple housecleaning... it is always more attractive to sell and move or burn it down than to give it the very same level of cleaning it is going to get anyway when the smoke clears or the transaction is made... Ironic, no?

But it is hard to do... we have a lot of bad habits... we are lazy... and we don't even (collectively) understand the need for it... most of the junk we need to throw out is somebody's memorabilia, someone's favorite tchochke... something we are *sure* we will need later.

Thanks for a great (as usual) commentary.

- Steve

Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky

Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology)

120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd.

Winnipeg, Manitoba

CANADA R2J 3R2

(204) 2548321 Phone/Fax

[hidden email]

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of James Steiner
Sent: December 7, 2010 8:21 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

It's my belief that individual privacy is entirely NOT the same as government classification (as secret, top secret, etc) of information.

Governments do NOT have a "right of privacy". Our government is supposed to be "by, of, and for" the people. It's use of secrecy is appropriate (and should be protected) when that secrecy serves to protect those people, not when it serves to protect the individuals who do the classifying (or those they serve) from embarrassment or legal prosecution.

Such uses are (and I'm pretty sure this is not just my opinion), illegal.

We all kind of "knew" that classification has been used this way. We all hear or see or read anecdotes. Well, the Irag war papers proved it. As have all the subsequent leaks.

I think that until the government and all its agents demonstrate that they can use the tool of keeping secrets correctly, that they should not be allowed to keep secrets.

Wikileaks has done the American People a great service. Now I hope that they (we) are smart enough, and outraged enough, to move to fix what's broken. (IMHO, that's congress / campaign finance / influence peddling).

~~James

www.turtlezero.com

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote:

In the age of social media and social networks
privacy has become an issue of intense debate.
Privacy means an individual has the right to be secure from unauthorized disclosure of information about oneself.

Now if a state has "state secrets", is this fundamentally different from privacy issues for
the individual (only for the state)? Should
a state in a democracy have any real secrets
at all? And if the state has the right to prevent invasion of privacy, shouldn't the individual have the same right, too?

It is clearly evil what Wikileaks has done recently,
they went to far this time. But too much censorship
and secrecy is not a good idea, either (as the "top secret america" investigation from the Washington Post showed). What do you think?

-J.
============================================================
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

glen ropella

Re: Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

In reply to this post by Vladimyr Burachynsky

Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote circa 10-12-08 10:29 AM:
> It seems conclusive to me that most conspiracy theories can be attributed to
> Gross Stupidity and the Secrecy imparts an air of reasoning where none
> exists. ( We refuse to believe some affairs are complete and utter nonsense,
> hence all the sightings of Jesus in concrete stains. Our brains impart
> patterns where none exists) How much effort is expended to reveal that some
> agency was incompetent or stupid (Air India, Lockerbie Bombing).

Although this perspective on 6 sigma thoughts (e.g. conspiracy theories)
is reasonable and practical, it's also dangerous. We, as a population
depend fundamentally on the thinkers in the tails of the distributions.
Those people do the due diligence none of us practical, reasonable
people are willing to do. Sure, it's true that most of what those (us)
wackos spend their (our) time on ends up being rat holes and dead ends.
But the benefit is worth the cost. Without wackos like Penrose
speculating about quantum decoherence in the brain or astrobiologists
_wanting_ to demonstrate the functional equivalence of chemical
constituents in compounds like DNA, we'd be lost. Our progress, if we
made any at all, would be made by blunt thinkers whose best
contributions enslave us to machines like assembly lines or standard
accounting practices.

Even more to your overall point, the wackos, albeit in the tails of some
distributions, can be thought of as the _most_ human, the grounding
points for other distributions. What's more human than the plight of a
paranoid schizophrenic? What's more human than strapping on a diaper so
you can make good time stalking the object of your affection? _These_
are the people who save us from becoming _objects_. They must be
cherished and treasured for their humanity.

Don't be too hard on the wackos. And don't resist becoming a wacko
yourself. Let your freak flag fly, man. ;-)

--
glen

============================================================
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

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

I'd say that the original conspiracy theory was the suspicion that one was being stalked by a group of very stealthy predators. Usually a false positive, but one false negative and you were lunch.

-- rec --

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:14 AM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote circa 10-12-08 10:29 AM:

> It seems conclusive to me that most conspiracy theories can be attributed to
> Gross Stupidity and the Secrecy imparts an air of reasoning where none
> exists. ( We refuse to believe some affairs are complete and utter nonsense,
> hence all the sightings of Jesus in concrete stains. Our brains impart
> patterns where none exists) How much effort is expended to reveal that some
> agency was incompetent or stupid (Air India, Lockerbie Bombing).

Although this perspective on 6 sigma thoughts (e.g. conspiracy theories)
is reasonable and practical, it's also dangerous. We, as a population
depend fundamentally on the thinkers in the tails of the distributions.
Those people do the due diligence none of us practical, reasonable
people are willing to do. Sure, it's true that most of what those (us)
wackos spend their (our) time on ends up being rat holes and dead ends.
But the benefit is worth the cost. Without wackos like Penrose
speculating about quantum decoherence in the brain or astrobiologists
_wanting_ to demonstrate the functional equivalence of chemical
constituents in compounds like DNA, we'd be lost. Our progress, if we
made any at all, would be made by blunt thinkers whose best
contributions enslave us to machines like assembly lines or standard
accounting practices.

Even more to your overall point, the wackos, albeit in the tails of some
distributions, can be thought of as the _most_ human, the grounding
points for other distributions. What's more human than the plight of a
paranoid schizophrenic? What's more human than strapping on a diaper so
you can make good time stalking the object of your affection? _These_
are the people who save us from becoming _objects_. They must be
cherished and treasured for their humanity.

Don't be too hard on the wackos. And don't resist becoming a wacko
yourself. Let your freak flag fly, man. ;-)

--
glen

============================================================
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

Nick Thompson

Re: Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

Well, GEEZ, Roger. Have YOU ever seen an elephant in a cherry tree?

Nick

Ps: if you are too young to know what an elephant joke is, you won’t get this. In fact, if you’re old enough to know what an elephant joke is, you still may not get it.

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 2:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

I'd say that the original conspiracy theory was the suspicion that one was being stalked by a group of very stealthy predators. Usually a false positive, but one false negative and you were lunch.

-- rec --

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:14 AM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote circa 10-12-08 10:29 AM:

> It seems conclusive to me that most conspiracy theories can be attributed to
> Gross Stupidity and the Secrecy imparts an air of reasoning where none
> exists. ( We refuse to believe some affairs are complete and utter nonsense,
> hence all the sightings of Jesus in concrete stains. Our brains impart
> patterns where none exists) How much effort is expended to reveal that some
> agency was incompetent or stupid (Air India, Lockerbie Bombing).

Although this perspective on 6 sigma thoughts (e.g. conspiracy theories)
is reasonable and practical, it's also dangerous. We, as a population
depend fundamentally on the thinkers in the tails of the distributions.
Those people do the due diligence none of us practical, reasonable
people are willing to do. Sure, it's true that most of what those (us)
wackos spend their (our) time on ends up being rat holes and dead ends.
But the benefit is worth the cost. Without wackos like Penrose
speculating about quantum decoherence in the brain or astrobiologists
_wanting_ to demonstrate the functional equivalence of chemical
constituents in compounds like DNA, we'd be lost. Our progress, if we
made any at all, would be made by blunt thinkers whose best
contributions enslave us to machines like assembly lines or standard
accounting practices.

Even more to your overall point, the wackos, albeit in the tails of some
distributions, can be thought of as the _most_ human, the grounding
points for other distributions. What's more human than the plight of a
paranoid schizophrenic? What's more human than strapping on a diaper so
you can make good time stalking the object of your affection? _These_
are the people who save us from becoming _objects_. They must be
cherished and treasured for their humanity.

Don't be too hard on the wackos. And don't resist becoming a wacko
yourself. Let your freak flag fly, man. ;-)

--
glen

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

No, and I didn't remember the joke, but google tells me if I haven't seen one then their strategy for hiding there must be working.

-- rec --

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well, GEEZ, Roger. Have YOU ever seen an elephant in a cherry tree?

Nick
Ps: if you are too young to know what an elephant joke is, you won’t get this. In fact, if you’re old enough to know what an elephant joke is, you still may not get it.

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 2:15 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

I'd say that the original conspiracy theory was the suspicion that one was being stalked by a group of very stealthy predators. Usually a false positive, but one false negative and you were lunch.

-- rec --

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:14 AM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote circa 10-12-08 10:29 AM:
> It seems conclusive to me that most conspiracy theories can be attributed to
> Gross Stupidity and the Secrecy imparts an air of reasoning where none
> exists. ( We refuse to believe some affairs are complete and utter nonsense,
> hence all the sightings of Jesus in concrete stains. Our brains impart
> patterns where none exists) How much effort is expended to reveal that some
> agency was incompetent or stupid (Air India, Lockerbie Bombing).
Although this perspective on 6 sigma thoughts (e.g. conspiracy theories)
is reasonable and practical, it's also dangerous. We, as a population
depend fundamentally on the thinkers in the tails of the distributions.
Those people do the due diligence none of us practical, reasonable
people are willing to do. Sure, it's true that most of what those (us)
wackos spend their (our) time on ends up being rat holes and dead ends.
But the benefit is worth the cost. Without wackos like Penrose
speculating about quantum decoherence in the brain or astrobiologists
_wanting_ to demonstrate the functional equivalence of chemical
constituents in compounds like DNA, we'd be lost. Our progress, if we
made any at all, would be made by blunt thinkers whose best
contributions enslave us to machines like assembly lines or standard
accounting practices.

Even more to your overall point, the wackos, albeit in the tails of some
distributions, can be thought of as the _most_ human, the grounding
points for other distributions. What's more human than the plight of a
paranoid schizophrenic? What's more human than strapping on a diaper so
you can make good time stalking the object of your affection? _These_
are the people who save us from becoming _objects_. They must be
cherished and treasured for their humanity.

Don't be too hard on the wackos. And don't resist becoming a wacko
yourself. Let your freak flag fly, man. ;-)

--
glen

============================================================
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

============================================================
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

Nick Thompson

Re: Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

Has to do with the efficacy of painting their toes red.

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 2:52 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

No, and I didn't remember the joke, but google tells me if I haven't seen one then their strategy for hiding there must be working.

-- rec --

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well, GEEZ, Roger. Have YOU ever seen an elephant in a cherry tree?

Nick

Ps: if you are too young to know what an elephant joke is, you won’t get this. In fact, if you’re old enough to know what an elephant joke is, you still may not get it.

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 2:15 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

I'd say that the original conspiracy theory was the suspicion that one was being stalked by a group of very stealthy predators. Usually a false positive, but one false negative and you were lunch.

-- rec --

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:14 AM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote circa 10-12-08 10:29 AM:

Steve Smith

Re: Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

In reply to this post by Roger Critchlow-2

I can just see it now... a whole horde of FRIAMers with their "freakin' flags flyin'!" it's an appalling thought... even in line at TSA waitin for their turn at the backscatters!

Don't be too hard on the wackos. And don't resist becoming a wacko
yourself. Let your freak flag fly, man. ;-)

--
glen

============================================================
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
============================================================
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

Tom Carter

Re: Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

<base href="x-msg://184/">Nick -

Actually, paint toenails red is strawberry patch, have red eyes is cherry tree . . . :-)

tom

On Dec 10, 2010, at 2:19 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

Has to do with the efficacy of painting their toes red.

N

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 2:52 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

No, and I didn't remember the joke, but google tells me if I haven't seen one then their strategy for hiding there must be working.

-- rec --
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Well, GEEZ, Roger. Have YOU ever seen an elephant in a cherry tree?

Nick
Ps: if you are too young to know what an elephant joke is, you won’t get this. In fact, if you’re old enough to know what an elephant joke is, you still may not get it.

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 2:15 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

I'd say that the original conspiracy theory was the suspicion that one was being stalked by a group of very stealthy predators. Usually a false positive, but one false negative and you were lunch.

-- rec --

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:14 AM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote circa 10-12-08 10:29 AM:
> It seems conclusive to me that most conspiracy theories can be attributed to
> Gross Stupidity and the Secrecy imparts an air of reasoning where none
> exists. ( We refuse to believe some affairs are complete and utter nonsense,
> hence all the sightings of Jesus in concrete stains. Our brains impart
> patterns where none exists) How much effort is expended to reveal that some
> agency was incompetent or stupid (Air India, Lockerbie Bombing).
Although this perspective on 6 sigma thoughts (e.g. conspiracy theories)
is reasonable and practical, it's also dangerous. We, as a population
depend fundamentally on the thinkers in the tails of the distributions.
Those people do the due diligence none of us practical, reasonable
people are willing to do. Sure, it's true that most of what those (us)
wackos spend their (our) time on ends up being rat holes and dead ends.
But the benefit is worth the cost. Without wackos like Penrose
speculating about quantum decoherence in the brain or astrobiologists
_wanting_ to demonstrate the functional equivalence of chemical
constituents in compounds like DNA, we'd be lost. Our progress, if we
made any at all, would be made by blunt thinkers whose best
contributions enslave us to machines like assembly lines or standard
accounting practices.

Even more to your overall point, the wackos, albeit in the tails of some
distributions, can be thought of as the _most_ human, the grounding
points for other distributions. What's more human than the plight of a
paranoid schizophrenic? What's more human than strapping on a diaper so
you can make good time stalking the object of your affection? _These_
are the people who save us from becoming _objects_. They must be
cherished and treasured for their humanity.

Don't be too hard on the wackos. And don't resist becoming a wacko
yourself. Let your freak flag fly, man. ;-)

--
glen

============================================================
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

============================================================
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

============================================================
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

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

I got backscattered at Albq last Wednesday, is my picture on the internets yet?

--Doug

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

I can just see it now... a whole horde of FRIAMers with their "freakin' flags flyin'!" it's an appalling thought... even in line at TSA waitin for their turn at the backscatters!
Don't be too hard on the wackos. And don't resist becoming a wacko
yourself. Let your freak flag fly, man. ;-)

--
glen

============================================================
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
============================================================

Steve Smith

Re: Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

Yah... but Guerin and I spent a coupla hours hacking into the systems to get rid of the pics... that hard salami you tried to smuggle on was just disgusting!

I got backscattered at Albq last Wednesday, is my picture on the internets yet?
--Doug
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
I can just see it now... a whole horde of FRIAMers with their "freakin' flags flyin'!" it's an appalling thought... even in line at TSA waitin for their turn at the backscatters!
Don't be too hard on the wackos. And don't resist becoming a wacko
yourself. Let your freak flag fly, man. ;-)

--
glen

============================================================
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
============================================================
============================================================
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

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Privacy, Individual vs. Collective

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

At least they got my good side.

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

I got backscattered at Albq last Wednesday, is my picture on the internets yet?

I see you wore the spike heels
and Tiara Guerin and Nick loaned you from
their collections...

--Doug

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

I can just see it now... a whole horde of FRIAMers with their "freakin' flags flyin'!" it's an appalling thought... even in line at TSA waitin for their turn at the backscatters!