|
BahradSokhansanjSecondPaper 13 - 21 Jan 2012 - Main.BahradSokhansanj
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
We Are All Prometheus Now | | | I think the argument for freedom would have to be from first principles, that freedom is precious, futility - that restricting freedom would not work, or that restricting freedom in the area in question would have offsetting perverse consequences somewhere else. I think the piece as it is now leans towards the 'it's futile to try to restrict freedoms in this area' argument.
-- DevinMcDougall - 20 Jan 2012 | |
>
> |
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, Devin. I'm going to have to think about this... I'm not sure what it would be to argue for freedom from first principles might look like? I'm trying to start from the initial point that we associate the core of freedom as being the freedom of thought, and that's what's being challenged by all of this -- so if you want the restrictions, then you have to accept the loss of that core freedom (and then what freedoms are really left?) and then, that this would be futile anyway, so it's not really like you're trading freedom for anything but illusory security -- and in fact, real solutions for the security problems can only come from human creativity, which requires freedom to think about these unthinkable algorithms.
-- BahradSokhansanj - 21 Jan 2012 | | | |
|
|
BahradSokhansanjSecondPaper 12 - 20 Jan 2012 - Main.DevinMcDougall
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
We Are All Prometheus Now | | | -- BahradSokhansanj - 17 Jan 2012 | |
>
> |
Very interesting piece. One preliminary comment: I'm not quite persuaded yet that this piece has demonstrated that the choice between freedom and safety is a false one. I think there can be very persuasive arguments made that in many circumstances, freedom is a better choice than safety. However, I'm not sure the tension between the two dissolves so easily. I think your piece does more to make a case for freedom (since safety is impossible due to locks being circumventable) than it does to demonstrate that freedom and safety are not in tension. There may be a point to be made though that increased freedom in some circumstances increases safety - that might also be what you are getting at. If that's the case, I think that point could be more explicit. However, specifically with respect to lab synthesization of biological warfare implements, I think the argument that freedom increases safety might be difficult to make. Maybe the safety increase could come from full freedom to share information leading to antidotes for the weapons. But what if there are no antidotes? Then there would seem to be safety 'costs' to the freedom.
I think the argument for freedom would have to be from first principles, that freedom is precious, futility - that restricting freedom would not work, or that restricting freedom in the area in question would have offsetting perverse consequences somewhere else. I think the piece as it is now leans towards the 'it's futile to try to restrict freedoms in this area' argument.
-- DevinMcDougall - 20 Jan 2012 | | | |
|
|
BahradSokhansanjSecondPaper 11 - 18 Jan 2012 - Main.BahradSokhansanj
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
We Are All Prometheus Now | |
>
> | | | | Ready for review.
The ideas in this essay crystallized after watching Cory Doctorow’s recent lecture, The Coming War on the General Purpose Computer. | |
<
< | We believe that in a free society, government enforces laws that may restrict actions, based on the need to protect safety and social order. We like to believe that thoughts cannot be restricted or punished. We may accept limited prohibitions on reading and listening -- but only in extraordinary circumstances, tied to what we think will keep us safe from our darkest fears, like terrorism or child pornography -- but we don't see these as limiting thoughts. | >
> | We believe that in a free society, government enforces laws that limit our freedom of action in order to protect our safety and order society the way we'd like. We'd like to believe that our thoughts can't be restricted. Maybe we could accept a limit on what we can read or hear -- if only rarely, when needed to keep us safe from our darkest fears, terrorists, child pornographers, identity thieves.... Still,there can't be limits imposed on thought alone.
| | | | |
<
< | Computers challenge our ability to differentiate between a law that infringes the freedom to do something with the freedom to think about it. This matters because computers are now the way we acquire and transmit knowledge.They can be combined with 3-D printers to manufacture physical objects and devices. They can run DNA synthesis machines and engineer microorganisms. Laws can be enforced to prevent the use of computers to copy movies, build counterfeit or dangerous goods, or produce patented or dangerous microorganisms. But, how compatible are these laws with what we think is a free society? | >
> |
********
| | | | |
<
< | When we think about computers, we don't usually think about what computers actually are, just what they do -- the software they run or the content they display. The computer is just a passive, invisible entity. We don't even call most of them "computers." We use words like "smartphone," or "tablet" instead of "tablet computer." Kindles and Nooks are "e-readers." Playstations are "game consoles," even though they are basically desktop PCs, and we usually ignore the computers in Blu-Ray players and inside cars. But, these are all programmable, universal computers. | >
> |
Computers challenge our idea of a free society based on freedom of thought and conscience. Computers are now the way we gain and share knowledge. They can run 3-D printers to build physical objects and devices. They can run machines to manipulate DNA and modify microorganisms. Governments may enforce laws to stop computers from copying movies, build counterfeit or dangerous goods, or synthesize patented or dangerous microorganisms. But, controlling what we can do with a computer doesn't just infringe on the freedom to do, it also infringes on the freedom to think.
When we think about computers, we don't usually think about what computers actually are, just what they do -- the software they run or the content they display. The computer is just a passive, invisible entity. We don't even call most of them "computers." We use words like "smartphone," or "tablet" instead of "tablet computer." Kindles and Nooks are "e-readers." Playstations are "game consoles," even though they are basically desktop PCs, and we usually ignore the computers in Blu-Ray players and inside cars. But, these are all programmable, universal computers. | | | Universal computers are special, because they can execute any algorithm. Algorithms are just thoughts that have been broken down to pieces, a set of process and rules that can be described using logic. What algorithms computers can run is limited only by the speed of their circuitry and capacity to store data. Computers are "thinking machines," even though that's a concept that usually comes up in exotic, metaphysical discussions of artificial intelligence and silicon consciousness, the stuff that Kurzweil writes about. The reality of computers seems much more mundane; they just follow concrete, logical instructions. But, computers are already thinking for us, if not exactly like us. Computers execute our thoughts, or someone else's or a collective's thoughts, and then display the results. | |
>
> |
********
| | | | |
<
< | The "Information Age" is characterized by the word "information." This is interesting, because information is a long, Latin-rooted word. "Information" is a word that removes itself intellectually from our living experience. "Knowing" means basically the same thing, but it's not used as much. This is because "Information Age" is basically a marketing device, used to sell people on the idea that money can be made by buying and selling information. But "knowing" is "thinking." Commercializing "though" is a tougher sell. To control the marketplace of thought would mean having to control thought, and we don't like to contemplate what that means for a free society. Maybe advertising really is about that, but we don't like to think about what that implies. So we use "information" instead, to feel more comfortable. "Information" may be bought, sold, and owned, but "thoughts" are still free. | >
> |
The "Information Age" is characterized by the word "information." Information is a long, Latin-rooted, technical-sounding word. We understand it, when read or heard, at an intellectual remove from our living experience. "Knowing" means basically the same thing, but it's not used as much in this context. "The Information Age" is basically a marketing phrase, used to sell people on the idea that money can be made by buying and selling information. But "knowing" is "thinking." Commercializing thought is a tougher sell. To control the marketplace of thought would mean having to control thought, and we don't like to contemplate what that means for a free society. Maybe advertising really is about that, but we don't like to think about what that implies. So we use "information" instead, to feel more comfortable. Information may be bought, sold, and owned, but thoughts are still free. | | | So, the Information Age marketer sells a piece of information, which is translated into a series of logical processes, run through a universal computer, and turned into numbers that can be stored and displayed. A universal computer can run any algorithm with which it is programmed. Duplicating what it has stored in its memory, even when it's only cached there temporarily, is really easy. This means that profits can't be extracted from the scarcity of information.
In an attempt to make the information artificially scarce, sellers have tried increasingly sophisticated mechanisms to control it. But, these have been foiled again and again. Universal computers can run the algorithms that defeat the restrictions, because they have to be leaky for the information to be distributed and read by paying customers. Information sellers respond by developing restrictions that are increasingly fundamental to the operation of the computer. For example, software can be silently installed in computers that secretly reports on unauthorized access when a computer goes online, or even shuts computer's operating system and ability to function entirely. This is especially common in computers that are marketed in ways that avoid calling them "computers," like smartphones, tablets, game consoles, and embedded devices. | |
<
< | Anything thought builds, though, thought can undo. All the most sophisticated means of locking up information can be broken. The knowledge of how to circumvent can be restricted by banning certain algorithms, censoring the websites that publicize them, and watching those who seek them. Still, an algorithm running on a computer can go around all these measures. All it takes is knowledge and thought. So, the only solution is to ban the thoughts behind the algorithm -- to punish the people who think about them and try to learn about them. | >
> | Anything thought builds, though, thought can undo. Thoughts, implemented as algorithms running on computers, can be used to break all the most sophisticated locks placed on information. The knowledge of how to circumvent can be restricted by banning certain algorithms, censoring the websites that publicize them, and watching those who seek them. Algorithms, imagined by knowledge applied creatively, can go around all these measures. So, the only solution is to ban the thoughts behind the algorithm -- to punish the people who think about them and try to learn about them. | | | | |
<
< | This is why copyright law in the digital age is inconsistent with what we think of as being a free society. Enforcement means making circumvention illegal, and that means limiting thought, punishing it when it goes out of bounds. And, it still can't prevent anything. The police can only go after people after the fact, after the locks have been broken, and the information -- thoughts -- runs free, and the marketplace based on an artificial scarcity is broken. | >
> | This is why copyright law in the digital age is inconsistent with our conception of free society based on freedom of thought. Enforcement means outlawing circumvention. It means limiting thought, and punishing it when it goes out of bounds. Still, enforcing these laws can't prevent anything. The police can only go after violators after the fact, after the locks have been broken, and the information products -- thoughts -- go free, breaking that carefully constructed market built on false scarcity.
| | | | |
<
< | Soon, we will try to stop people from 3-D printing weapons and synthesizing microbes so that we can stay safe. But, any technological countermeasures will fail, no matter how sophisticated they are, and no matter heavily they are supported by laws and enforced by government action. The only recourse will be to more severely punish those whom are caught -- only after the locks are already broken. There is a better alternative. We can finally set aside the false choice between freedom and safety. We can stop avoiding hard problems by imposing punishment, and instead harness our shared thinking to actually solve them. | >
> |
********
Soon, many of us will ask governments to stop evil people from building 3-D printing weapons and synthesizing infectious agents. But, any technological countermeasures will fail, no matter how sophisticated they are, and no matter how heavily backed by laws and their enforcement. The only recourse will be to more severely punish those whom are caught -- only after the locks are already broken. There is a better alternative. We can finally set aside the false choice between freedom and safety. We can stop avoiding hard problems by punishing thinking, and instead share our thoughts and work to build solutions.
| | | -- BahradSokhansanj - 17 Jan 2012 |
|
|
BahradSokhansanjSecondPaper 10 - 18 Jan 2012 - Main.BahradSokhansanj
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
We Are All Prometheus Now | |
<
< | Ready for review. The ideas in this essay crystallized after watching Cory Doctorow’s recent lecture, The Coming War on the General Purpose Computer, which I strongly recommend. | >
> | Ready for review. | | | | |
<
< | We believe that in a free society, government enforces laws that may restrict actions, based on the need to protect safety and social order. We believe that at the foundation of a free society, thoughts cannot be restricted or punished. We may expect that there be limited prohibitions on reading and listening -- but only in extraordinary circumstances, tied to what we think will keep us safe from our darkest fears, like terrorism or child pornography -- but we don't see these as limiting thoughts. | >
> | The ideas in this essay crystallized after watching Cory Doctorow’s recent lecture, The Coming War on the General Purpose Computer.
We believe that in a free society, government enforces laws that may restrict actions, based on the need to protect safety and social order. We like to believe that thoughts cannot be restricted or punished. We may accept limited prohibitions on reading and listening -- but only in extraordinary circumstances, tied to what we think will keep us safe from our darkest fears, like terrorism or child pornography -- but we don't see these as limiting thoughts. | | | Computers challenge our ability to differentiate between a law that infringes the freedom to do something with the freedom to think about it. This matters because computers are now the way we acquire and transmit knowledge.They can be combined with 3-D printers to manufacture physical objects and devices. They can run DNA synthesis machines and engineer microorganisms. Laws can be enforced to prevent the use of computers to copy movies, build counterfeit or dangerous goods, or produce patented or dangerous microorganisms. But, how compatible are these laws with what we think is a free society? | | | So, the Information Age marketer sells a piece of information, which is translated into a series of logical processes, run through a universal computer, and turned into numbers that can be stored and displayed. A universal computer can run any algorithm with which it is programmed. Duplicating what it has stored in its memory, even when it's only cached there temporarily, is really easy. This means that profits can't be extracted from the scarcity of information. | |
<
< | In an attempt to make the information artificially scarce, sellers have tried increasingly sophisticated mechanisms to control it. But, these are consistently foiled again and again. Universal computers can run the algorithms that defeat the restrictions, because they have to be leaky for the information to be distributed and read by paying customers. Information sellers respond by developing restrictions that are increasingly fundamental to the operation of the computer. For example, software can be silently installed in computers that secretly reports on unauthorized access when a computer goes online, or even shuts computer's operating system and ability to function entirely. This is especially common in computers that are marketed in ways that avoid calling them "computers," like smartphones, tablets, game consoles, and embedded devices. | >
> | In an attempt to make the information artificially scarce, sellers have tried increasingly sophisticated mechanisms to control it. But, these have been foiled again and again. Universal computers can run the algorithms that defeat the restrictions, because they have to be leaky for the information to be distributed and read by paying customers. Information sellers respond by developing restrictions that are increasingly fundamental to the operation of the computer. For example, software can be silently installed in computers that secretly reports on unauthorized access when a computer goes online, or even shuts computer's operating system and ability to function entirely. This is especially common in computers that are marketed in ways that avoid calling them "computers," like smartphones, tablets, game consoles, and embedded devices. | | | | |
<
< | Anything thought builds though, thought can undo. All the most sophisticated means of locking up information can be broken. The knowledge of how to circumvent can be restricted by banning certain algorithms, censoring the websites that publicize them, and watching those who seek them. Still, an algorithm running on a computer can go around all these measures. All it takes is knowledge and thought. So, the only solution is to ban the thoughts behind the algorithm -- to punish the people who think about them and try to learn about them. | >
> | Anything thought builds, though, thought can undo. All the most sophisticated means of locking up information can be broken. The knowledge of how to circumvent can be restricted by banning certain algorithms, censoring the websites that publicize them, and watching those who seek them. Still, an algorithm running on a computer can go around all these measures. All it takes is knowledge and thought. So, the only solution is to ban the thoughts behind the algorithm -- to punish the people who think about them and try to learn about them. | | | This is why copyright law in the digital age is inconsistent with what we think of as being a free society. Enforcement means making circumvention illegal, and that means limiting thought, punishing it when it goes out of bounds. And, it still can't prevent anything. The police can only go after people after the fact, after the locks have been broken, and the information -- thoughts -- runs free, and the marketplace based on an artificial scarcity is broken. | |
<
< | There will be harder questions as in the future. We will want to stop people from 3-D printing weapons and synthesizing microbes so that we can stay safe. But, when we try to restrict the use of computers to do these things, we must realize that our countermeasures will fail -- nothing can be prevented, all that can be done is punish whom we can catch after the locks are already broken. There's something else we can do, though. We can choose to set aside the principle that freedom and safety are in conflict, that we must sacrifice one for the other. We can instead use our freedom to think in our free society to actually deal with the consequences of technology, and not try to avoid them with futile, spiteful laws. | >
> | Soon, we will try to stop people from 3-D printing weapons and synthesizing microbes so that we can stay safe. But, any technological countermeasures will fail, no matter how sophisticated they are, and no matter heavily they are supported by laws and enforced by government action. The only recourse will be to more severely punish those whom are caught -- only after the locks are already broken. There is a better alternative. We can finally set aside the false choice between freedom and safety. We can stop avoiding hard problems by imposing punishment, and instead harness our shared thinking to actually solve them. | | | -- BahradSokhansanj - 17 Jan 2012 |
|
|
BahradSokhansanjSecondPaper 9 - 18 Jan 2012 - Main.BahradSokhansanj
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
We Are All Prometheus Now
Ready for review. The ideas in this essay crystallized after watching Cory Doctorow’s recent lecture, The Coming War on the General Purpose Computer, which I strongly recommend. | |
<
< | We believe that in a free society, government enforces laws that may restrict actions, based on the need to protect safety and social order. We may expect that there be limited prohibitions on reading and listening -- but only in extraordinary circumstances, tied to what we think will keep us safe, whether related to fears of terrorism or concerns about child pornography. And yet, our moral intuition is that the freedom to do can be curtailed, but for us to be free, our government can't punish thought itself. | >
> | We believe that in a free society, government enforces laws that may restrict actions, based on the need to protect safety and social order. We believe that at the foundation of a free society, thoughts cannot be restricted or punished. We may expect that there be limited prohibitions on reading and listening -- but only in extraordinary circumstances, tied to what we think will keep us safe from our darkest fears, like terrorism or child pornography -- but we don't see these as limiting thoughts. | | | Computers challenge our ability to differentiate between a law that infringes the freedom to do something with the freedom to think about it. This matters because computers are now the way we acquire and transmit knowledge.They can be combined with 3-D printers to manufacture physical objects and devices. They can run DNA synthesis machines and engineer microorganisms. Laws can be enforced to prevent the use of computers to copy movies, build counterfeit or dangerous goods, or produce patented or dangerous microorganisms. But, how compatible are these laws with what we think is a free society? | |
<
< | When we think about computers, we don't usually think about what computers actually are, just what they do -- the software they run or the content they display. The computer is just a passive, invisible entity. We don't even call most of them "computers." We use words like "smartphone," or “tablet” instead of “tablet computer.” Kindles and Nooks are "e-readers." Playstations are "game consoles," even though they are basically desktop PCs, and we usually ignore the computers in Blu-Ray players and inside cars. But, these are all programmable, universal computers. | >
> | When we think about computers, we don't usually think about what computers actually are, just what they do -- the software they run or the content they display. The computer is just a passive, invisible entity. We don't even call most of them "computers." We use words like "smartphone," or "tablet" instead of "tablet computer." Kindles and Nooks are "e-readers." Playstations are "game consoles," even though they are basically desktop PCs, and we usually ignore the computers in Blu-Ray players and inside cars. But, these are all programmable, universal computers. | | | | |
<
< | Universal computers are special, because they can execute any algorithm. Algorithms are just thoughts that have been broken down to pieces, a set of process and rules that can be described using logic. What algorithms computers can run is limited only by the speed of their circuitry and capacity to store data. Computers are "thinking machines," even though that’s a concept that usually comes up in exotic, metaphysical discussions of artificial intelligence and silicon consciousness, the stuff that Kurzweil writes about. The reality of computers seems much more mundane; they just follow concrete, logical instructions. But, computers are already thinking for us, if not exactly like us. Computers execute our thoughts, or someone else's or a collective's thoughts, and then display the results. | >
> | Universal computers are special, because they can execute any algorithm. Algorithms are just thoughts that have been broken down to pieces, a set of process and rules that can be described using logic. What algorithms computers can run is limited only by the speed of their circuitry and capacity to store data. Computers are "thinking machines," even though that's a concept that usually comes up in exotic, metaphysical discussions of artificial intelligence and silicon consciousness, the stuff that Kurzweil writes about. The reality of computers seems much more mundane; they just follow concrete, logical instructions. But, computers are already thinking for us, if not exactly like us. Computers execute our thoughts, or someone else's or a collective's thoughts, and then display the results. | | | | |
<
< | The "Information Age" is characterized by the word "information." This is interesting, because information is a long, Latin-rooted word. “Information” is a word that removes itself intellectually from our living experience. "Knowledge" means basically the same thing, but it's not used as much. This is because "Information Age" is basically a marketing device, used to sell people on the idea that money can be made by buying and selling information. The word "knowledge" is bound up with "knowing," to human thought. Commercializing “thought” would be a tougher sell. We intuitively recognize that to control the marketplace of thought, means controlling thought itself. That’s actually the basis of marketing, really, but we don’t like to think about what that implies, so we prefer the word “information.” But the choice of word can’t avoid reality. | >
> | The "Information Age" is characterized by the word "information." This is interesting, because information is a long, Latin-rooted word. "Information" is a word that removes itself intellectually from our living experience. "Knowing" means basically the same thing, but it's not used as much. This is because "Information Age" is basically a marketing device, used to sell people on the idea that money can be made by buying and selling information. But "knowing" is "thinking." Commercializing "though" is a tougher sell. To control the marketplace of thought would mean having to control thought, and we don't like to contemplate what that means for a free society. Maybe advertising really is about that, but we don't like to think about what that implies. So we use "information" instead, to feel more comfortable. "Information" may be bought, sold, and owned, but "thoughts" are still free. | | | | |
<
< | The problem is that the information the eager Information Age marketer sells is translated into a series of logical processes, run through a universal computer, and turned into numbers that can be stored and displayed. A universal computer can run any algorithm with which it is programmed. Duplicating what it has stored in its memory, even when it’s only cached there temporarily, is really easy. This means that profits can’t be extracted from the scarcity of information. | >
> | So, the Information Age marketer sells a piece of information, which is translated into a series of logical processes, run through a universal computer, and turned into numbers that can be stored and displayed. A universal computer can run any algorithm with which it is programmed. Duplicating what it has stored in its memory, even when it's only cached there temporarily, is really easy. This means that profits can't be extracted from the scarcity of information. | | | | |
<
< | In an attempt to make the information artificially scarce, sellers have tried increasingly sophisticated mechanisms to control it. But, these are consistently foiled again and again. Universal computers can run the algorithms that defeat the restrictions, because they have to be leaky for the information to be distributed and read by paying customers. Information sellers respond by developing restrictions that are increasingly fundamental to the operation of the computer. For example, software can be silently installed in computers that secretly reports on unauthorized access when a computer goes online, or even shuts computer’s operating system and ability to function entirely. As Cory Doctorow says, "digital rights management always converges on malware." This is especially common in computers that are marketed as smartphones and tablets, or embedded in systems like DVD players, a de-functioning disguised by avoidance of the word “computer.” | >
> | In an attempt to make the information artificially scarce, sellers have tried increasingly sophisticated mechanisms to control it. But, these are consistently foiled again and again. Universal computers can run the algorithms that defeat the restrictions, because they have to be leaky for the information to be distributed and read by paying customers. Information sellers respond by developing restrictions that are increasingly fundamental to the operation of the computer. For example, software can be silently installed in computers that secretly reports on unauthorized access when a computer goes online, or even shuts computer's operating system and ability to function entirely. This is especially common in computers that are marketed in ways that avoid calling them "computers," like smartphones, tablets, game consoles, and embedded devices. | | | | |
<
< | Anything thought builds though, thought can undo. All the most sophisticated means of locking up information can be broken. The knowledge of how to circumvent can be restricted by punishing people who come up with the algorithms, censoring the websites that publicize them, and watching those who seek them. But, an algorithm running on a computer can go around all these measures. All it takes is knowledge and thought. | >
> | Anything thought builds though, thought can undo. All the most sophisticated means of locking up information can be broken. The knowledge of how to circumvent can be restricted by banning certain algorithms, censoring the websites that publicize them, and watching those who seek them. Still, an algorithm running on a computer can go around all these measures. All it takes is knowledge and thought. So, the only solution is to ban the thoughts behind the algorithm -- to punish the people who think about them and try to learn about them. | | | | |
<
< | This is why copyright law in the digital age is inconsistent with what we think of as being a free society. Enforcement means making circumvention illegal, and that means limiting thought, punishing it when it goes out of bounds, all to support an already obsolete business model. Not to mention that the enforcement can’t prevent anything. It can only go after people after the fact, after the locks have been broken, and information runs free. | >
> | This is why copyright law in the digital age is inconsistent with what we think of as being a free society. Enforcement means making circumvention illegal, and that means limiting thought, punishing it when it goes out of bounds. And, it still can't prevent anything. The police can only go after people after the fact, after the locks have been broken, and the information -- thoughts -- runs free, and the marketplace based on an artificial scarcity is broken. | | | | |
<
< | There will be harder questions as computers do more stuff, and we try to stop people from 3-D printing and synthesizing microbes in ways that we fear will harm safety and social order. But, when we try to restrict the use of computers to do these things, we need to recognize first, that our countermeasures will fail, and second, all we can do is punish anyone caught after the restrictions are already broken. And, in weighing the laws we want as punishment, we need decide how enforcing them sacrifices our own personal freedom to think, in what we believe is a free society. | >
> | There will be harder questions as in the future. We will want to stop people from 3-D printing weapons and synthesizing microbes so that we can stay safe. But, when we try to restrict the use of computers to do these things, we must realize that our countermeasures will fail -- nothing can be prevented, all that can be done is punish whom we can catch after the locks are already broken. There's something else we can do, though. We can choose to set aside the principle that freedom and safety are in conflict, that we must sacrifice one for the other. We can instead use our freedom to think in our free society to actually deal with the consequences of technology, and not try to avoid them with futile, spiteful laws. | | | -- BahradSokhansanj - 17 Jan 2012 |
|
|