|
March 25, 2004
The EEK factor is sometimes right!
The 79th Carnival of the Vanities is up at Pete Holiday's excellent humor blog. My post about the FBI/FCC and restructuring of the Internet got an "EEK." Considering recent controversy over Richard Clarke, I think I should amplify upon the EEK factor, because I see a conflict between those like Clarke who want to make the Internet safer from cyber attack -- and those like the FBI and the FCC, who want the Internet more vulnerable. Yes, I did say vulnerable. And here I am almost sympathetic to Mr. Clarke, whose recognition that sometimes the hated hackers can make us safer by exposing holes and other vulnerabilities was praised by no less than Glenn Reynolds (otherwise a Clarke critic). Sweeping changes often have unintended consequences. Another reason we ought to be very careful about leaving something like this to government bureaucrats instead of the democratic, constitutional process. I am not a cyber geek, but how about anyone out there? Thank you Pete, for saying "EEK." Might Leon Kass's observations about instinctive repugnance be implicated here? Repugnance might not be a logical argument, but I think that sometimes it can germinate logical thinking about things ordinary logic would otherwise cause us to overlook. After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. BY THE WAY: Please read the entire Carnival. They're all great, as usual, and made all the more delectable by the host's excellent taste and wit. posted by Eric on 03.25.04 at 03:53 PM
Comments
Don't apologize! Some of my comments here are practically dissertations (and really need to go on _my_ blog when I finally get a Round Too-it!). Phone conversations not vulnerable to end-user encryption? Somebody needs to notify Mr. Ashcroft that those sweet old ladies exchanging cookie recipies were actually exchanging formulae for the hydrogen bomb! Anyway... "Revulsions are absurdities." Disgust is an extremely fascinating (if disgusting) emotion to think about. Back in Central High School, our friend Kim Eric Drexler used to say that certain kids, mainly the "jocks" who picked on him, were "disgusting". (Yes, _that_ K. Eric Drexler, the genius behind nanotechnology. Look up the Foresight Institute, which he founded, and/or do a Google search. I'm not saying any of his intelligence rubbed off on me, just that I'm glad to have known him and I like to boast of having known him whenever the occasion arises.) I'm disgusted by the texture of certain foods -- potatoes (especially mashed), lima beans, and the very EXISTENCE of garbanzo beans (though that _name_ is interesting). Call me anti-family but: The thought of incest disgusts me. I have some good-looking cousins, but I never fantasize about them because -- well, they're my cousins! (In many states here in the U.S., it's actually legal to marry your cousin -- including most of the states where homosexual relations were illegal up to 26/6/2003. I'm gynosexual, but I think I'd as soon be buggered by a man than marry even a pretty cousin. Yes, the taboo is that strong in me.) I won't use the names of certain members of my immediate family in my stories because of the incest taboo. I also feel that way toward certain authority figures, e.g., Ayn Rand, a sort of projected parental feeling. Silvan Tomkins, and extremely interesting psychologist and spectrumologist, observed that disgust is a characteristic emotion exhibited by those of the Right. A most interesting thought. Certain of my characters.... I note that the aforementioned Ayn Rand often said things were "disgusting". But was she on the Right? Silvan Tomkins framed his spectrum in the form of the following philosophical question: "Is Man the measure, an end in himself, an active, creative, thinking, desiring, loving force in nature [Left]? Syephen or Starn or Storm Malcolmb Anderssonnn the Lesbian-eating pho-loving aesthete-worshipping gu · March 26, 2004 02:18 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
As a computer nerd, allow me to say this: the FCC can "wiretap" the internet all they want. The only result is that they'll be able to eavesdrop on the careless and tech unsavvy.
It's possible, though, that this sort of thing would spurn a rise in the use of encryption... as people get paranoid about their own personal communications being listened in on, more software will hit the market that will allow for encryption and it will become more popular, even among those who don't know how it works. The best encryption algorithms out there today are not easily crackable by even (we think) the NSA, let alone some FBI investigator... what's more, I feel that if the encryption is implemented at the packet-level, it would be even more trying for the would-be privacy invaders.
So, essentially, this would be an EXPENSIVE and relatively useless invasion of privacy, as far as I'm concerned. This is not like wiretapping telephone lines, a system not vulnerable to end-user encryption.
Just my 2 (more like 20) cents. (Sorry for the blog-length comment!)