[MUD-Dev] Wild west (was Guilds & Politics)

[JC Lawrence]

On Wed, 31 Dec 1997 10:10:25 PST8PDT Ola wrote:
> JC Lawrence <claw at under.Eng.Sun.COM> wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Dec 1997 15:52:58 PST8PDT stad <Ola> wrote:
>>> JC Lawrence <claw at under.Eng.Sun.COM> wrote:

>>> Isn't that obvious?  The freedom to act in the moment and focus on
>>> whatever seems like a good idea?

>>  Ahh, but logging does not prevent that.  It is merely your
>> sensibilities which do.  I'm not about to take responsibility for
>> those.

> That is a convinient choice of viewpoint.  

True.  It is a question of limits.  I assert that an individual is
responsible for the effects he creates, no matter his intentions, but
also assert that an individual is responsible for the effects created
upon him.  (No, they don't conflict) There is a judgement factor and a
balance there.  Past a judged point of remove, quite simply, I just
don't care any more: the problem is too small to be worthy of
attention.

> In my view a good
> interactive design will take "human factors" into account.  Even
> feelings.  Even irrational feelings. 

Agreed.  However I strictly seperate what I class as technical
problems and social problems, and while I'm willing to crutch the
solutions to social problems with technical tools/solutions, I do not
see that a technical solution should or can ever be an entire solution
to a social problem.  

Machines don't process people well.  I'm willing to accept that as a
near absolute.

> (The above sensitivity is rational though)

I don't agree, but won't argue.

>>>> Whether we like it or note we are about to enter an age where the
>>>> flow of data is both uncontrollable and uncontrolled.  Govt's and
>>>> other such may attempt to delay this change.  They can do nothing
>>>> to avert it entirely.  It is, quite literally, inevitable.
>>
>>> Why?  This is a self-fullfilling prophecy.
>>  Quite.  It will happen for the utterly simple reason that it can
>> happen, and there is nothing that can prevent it from happening.

> Nonono, it will happen when everyone says it will happen. If
> professionals start to say: we will prevent this from happening...

You are thinking as if this were a local or otherwise contained
problem.  Its not.  The problem is generic to the entire human
population.  While one programmer, or even all the programmers of a
country, continent, or a majority of the programmers planet-wide etc,
can be so principled, there is no ability to ensure that any one
programmer anywhere is __NOT__ so principled, and there are
significant financial and other incentives to fostering such
unprincipled behaviour ("programmer" being a bad choice of noun of
course).  This is not a "its gonna happen"-type prediction, it is a,
"sooner or later its gonna happen and we can't control when"-type
prediction.

Its purely a probability game ala nuclear decay.  You can control it
on the micro scale, but you can't guarantee anything on the macro.

>>> You can do quite a lot if you are _aware_ that you are being
>>> monitored.  You can avoid having a telephone.  You can avoid
>>> buying with cards.  You can browse the web with somebodyelses
>>> browser.  I can grow my own food.  Use my own energy powerplant.
>>> Etc.

>>  Yup.  This essentially equates to removing yourself from the rest
>> of human society by limiting the points of interaction (IO) with
>> that society.  Given a person who has absolutely no interaction or
>> dependency on the rest of the world, does he really matter?  Does a
>> tree falling in the woods make a sound if nobody hears it?

> I never said no interaction. You can have limited interaction.  You
> can buy and interact in batches.  Provide as little details about
> your actions as possible.  Utilize encryption.

To the extent that you practicxe such you are removing yourself from
the rest of society.  You have limited interaction, ergo, you have
limited the extent to which you are a part of that society.

> For instance, I guess a programmer could do almost everything
> external by email.  Have your computer call up your connection point
> regularly, transmit the same amount of encrypted data each
> time. Etc. Etc.

Yup.  I do this.

> I don't buy your assertion that the outcome of the current trends is
> inevitable.

<shrug>

Its already happening.

>> How about if the company in question has no data on you, but
>> instead used a data collection service to assemble a report on you?
>> In turn the data collection service has no data on you either, but
>> polls and collects data from hundreds or thousands of other data
>> services across the planet, many in unknown or virtual locations.
>> Those services in turn are often sub-collectors, and occassionally
>> original sources.

> Most people want reliable information.  Anyway, introduce laws that
> require companies to track their sources.  Make companies that
> assemble information about persons responsible.  Etc.

Okay -- and what if its offshore?  How about if the source has no
determinable location (not difficult to do in this digital age) or
determinable human ownership (already happening)?  

Okay, XXX country makes and strongly enforces those laws.  What is to
prevent YYY company which does business in XXX from employing an
outside agency (outside of XXX) to gather and process the data, and
report it to YYY outside of XXX, etc?

Audtiability doesn't work when you can't control or influence the
other end.  If the other end is anonymous, then you are up a creek
without a paddle.

> I don't buy your "a priori" prophecy :-) It is possible to limit the
> effects.

I'll accept that it is possible to delay or to change their character,
but not prevent them.

--
J C Lawrence                               Internet: claw at null.net
                                           Internet: coder at ibm.net
----------(*)                        Internet: jc.lawrence at sun.com
...Honourary Member of Clan McFud -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...