User:Qdot
User: Qdot
Tomasz Mloduchowski E-120 notes
About me
Nerd, investor, engineer, Web 2.0 architect (scalability and user policy), technologist, sarcastic, frequently playing Devil's Advocate.
Unless specifically stated otherwise, I tend to express and explore views from odd angles, often ferociously defending them, and leaving the audience confused about my personal views.
Lecture 1 (pre)
about fundamental social, political and economic change, or about easier access to pornography, cheap pharmaceuticals, free music and poker at home?
How about both. What if a fundamental change is about pornography and cheap drugs? We should think about how societies developed, and how the latter part of the sentence became illegal or obscene?
Pornography
Anthropology teaches us, that most early societies did not put restrictions on pornography. Early humans entertained themselves watching members of opposite sex, with no age restrictions whatsoever. One can make a compelling argument, that pre-teens would find it mildly interesting after their initial curiosity was satisfied. [2]
Cheap Pharmaceuticals
If one looks at FDA, it's powers were expanded significantly by Kefauver-Harris Amendment in 1962, following the thalidomide tragedy. You can make, again, the argument that the entire 'radiation drug' tragedies of 1920s went entirely unnoticed by the federal government, and the main purpose of the 1962 Amendment of the 1938 FD&C act was rallying political support. Should that Act be revised? Market says yes, lobbyists say no, while millions of dollars are wasted on prosecution of cheap, illegal import of pharmaceuticals.
Free Music
Maybe music should be free? Maybe, just the way musicians perform on the radio, for a fee (funded by the advertisements), know that they will get a nationwide 'free' distribution, they should know that if some entity has an interest in them performing, they might get global, free distribution? It just might work, with the popularity of an artist being monetized through memorabilia, concert tours and other tangible goods and services, without interfering with the digital nature of the recording itself? It's a paradigm change, but since the cost of duplication is near-zero (and still falling), it might be the only way. There actually was an early precedent, when the commercial radio was taking off, people touted the ability of an every artist finding a channel for his work.
Poker at home
Poker at home? - honestly, why not. Does one require any state tax-funded services with this kind of business? Not really, when a user enters a binding contract in a foreign nation, it's his set of problems. It can become an addiction, but pretty much everything can. The real problem - whom to pay taxes to. One can spin this problem on its head - which (extra) tax-funded services a poker player can require. If a user chooses to buy liquor in a store, the tax goes to alcohol prevention, mitigation of the effects of the abuse, bureaucracy inefficiencies etc. Online - there is no possible prevention, very little effects to mitigate (some addict ends up in debt, it's getting worked out between that person's creditors (CCs, making profit off commercial counter-party risk) and the website itself, in accordance with whatever corporate tax they both have to pay for judicial services).
Elevator pitch
Bottom line - what if internet exposes inefficiencies in our current system of government; that would otherwise be taboo (pornography); unpopular in Congress (FDA abolishment/restructuring, note that closing any government office is a very delicate matter); unpopular in mass media (free music, RIAA's lobbying force etc); or simply inaccessible (not that many people would fly to Vegas to play real poker, while I understand the position of other states that don't want to handle the real-world effects of real-world gambling)? Maybe it's just the first stroke of the new global order.
Ideas
- Friction at the boundaries
A random thought - if an activity exists entirely in the virtual domain, it is easy to avoid all attempts of governmental control. People do live in the real world, and the government can only make progress enforcing those contact points.
- Meritocracy
Did the internet convert from the elusive 'Independent Cyberspace' to an extension of 'Real Space'? The answer depends on the technical skills of the user (and actually, if, per scientific method, one holds the technical skills constant between 1992 and 2009, I'd claim it's still 'Independent'). There are really good, really strong anonymity tools available. If you take an internet user of 1992, he would likely be an academic, military researcher or a good engineer, using some variation of Unix (and having the skills to tinker with it), understanding the basic principles of the information superhighway (consequences of putting personal data online, etc).
Put him in the internet of 2009, and he would probably immediately hear about TOR (effectively overriding 'Digital Borders'), he would likely use an open wi-fi AP, etc. If he embarked on something that he worries about being considered 'illegal, bawdy or tawdry' in his regime, he would use a different profile/system account for legitimate, and illegitimate business. He would use some form of Full Disk Encryption (while being responsible with the keys). He might consider the possibility of being coerced to provide a decryption key, and would mitigate that risk. He might separate his browsing activity (google TOR vmware player), he would verify the identity of the communication partner (through a chain of trust, or physical interaction), he would probably appreciate the progress of SSL, the development of PGP, the availability of a complete set of open-source applications. Or, he would be just like the remaining 99% of the internet population that joined since 1992, enjoying all the modern conveniences (TOR is still slower than direct connection, open APs come and go, encryption isn't always convenient), hopefully accepting the risks, and not crying on the national media over the expected occasional identity theft, just like someone entering a crowded cheap nightclub might expect to find his pockets picked every few thousand visits.
Notes
- ↑ Was there any research? I would prefer the child abuse claim to be supported by the evidence of actual percentage of children being abused. Assuming the market cannot be completely extinguished, does preventing people from viewing such material actually prevents crime, or alleviate the suffering of that unfortunate kid? Do we actually see more of child abuse (no idea how to research that) per 1000 children, than we did prior to the internet? Since if 0.01% of kids were molested, chances are that in pre-internet society, only 50 people would hear about each story, and only 0.5% of population would be aware of the problem. Internet allows everyone to hear every kids story, and at that percentage, there are literally thousands of such kids.
- ↑ One can make a counter-argument that with larger audiences allowed through modern media, child molestation can become a real problem [1]. Thou that's a more general problem, on treating pedophilia, parental responsibility in children education in the sense whether every parents serious talk: "You shouldn't accept an offer for a ride home from strangers" should include "You should't accept invitations to strangers home over internet"... Even then you have the problem of pathological families, and kids in developing countries, but you have to make a decision whether it's more detrimental to that kid's mental and physical health to work in a sweatshop, or to be photographed naked. Of course, there is an easy answer - tell your nation that we don't allow 'fundamental' changes there, and sweep the discussion under the rug