randolph@cognito.Eng.Sun.COM (Randolph Fritz) (03/22/91)
Dan, rather than all those very difficult things, wouldn't it be easier to begin building zero-knowlege systems -- that is, public key systems where personal information can be given out only once, and only with the consent of the keeper? They've been technically feasible for at least five years. This would require some legal work, but nothing like what you're proposing. This is very scary stuff. On the one hand, some of us are so worried about privacy that they're prepared to make unpredictable social changes just to protect it. On the other hand, some of us are basically arguing that, if you make a business of it, it's all right to be a snoop. I'm having real problems understanding this position -- if prying is wrong for individuals, surely it is also wrong for organizations? And destroying privacy is one of the big methods of totalitarian social control -- one of the ways you design a prison is to make all spaces public and encourage snitching. Supporting this in the name of freedom also looks a lot like panic. May I suggest we keep our heads? nd t ou ui R Press T __Randolph Fritz sun!cognito.eng!randolph || randolph@eng.sun.com ou ui Mountain View, California, North America, Earth nd t Perrot: And there's no point for the prisoners in taking over the central tower? Foucault: Oh, yes, provided that isn't the final purpose of the operation. Do you think it would be much better to have the prisoners operating the Panoptic apparatus and sitting in the central tower, instead of the guards? -- From "The Eye of Power", a conversation of Michael Foucault with Jean-Pierre Barou and Michelle Barou, collected in *Power/Knowlege*