RE: [projectvrm] Does this list welcome natural law/rights wonks?

["Crosbie Fitch" < >]

> From: Brian Behlendorf
> Would you concede, then, that there is a difference between 
> attempting to build:
> 
> a) systems that hard-code DRM-personal-data principles in 
> algorithm and promise it's unbreakable
> 
> versus
> 
> b) systems that use a combination of default settings, 
> contract law, and consensus to achieve some personal-data protection
> 
> The former may be both folly and immoral and right to oppose; but the 
> latter seems permissable, let me illustrate with your example:

Even if we put morality/ethics to one side, if it can't work, it can't work.

As should have been learnt with DRM. Man-made law cannot make something
work, that doesn't work. It can only serve as part of a confidence trick.

King Canute tried to demonstrate that his power could not exceed natural
law, and this parable keeps failing to be appreciated. Presumably, people
today just don't think he tried hard enough, or didn't appoint the right
calibre of legal advisors to suitably augment his powers.

If you create iCommunicate and iTrade sandboxes and parcel up all
information into iData, and permit users of these sandboxes to communicate
and trade only in terms of iSpeech (eliminating the ability to communicate
via keyboard or other means), and permit the introduction of iData items
into their iSpeech only according to respective iPrivacyPolicies, then yes,
you can get your sandbox to operate according to Canutian law.

But it's just your sandbox, like iTunes. For this sandbox to be effective
(to be utilised instead of rejected as a joke), you'd have to imprison and
gag people into Matrix like cocoons to ensure they couldn't communicate via
any other means. Even then, people would soon develop codes to subvert the
constraints of your sandbox.

Even if you offered a really juicy carrot, people would only use your
sandbox for what it could be used for, and other systems for what your
sandbox couldn't be used for. And people do have memories (and
screen-scrapers) and iData would cross-pollinate into gossip and merchant
exploitable data.


> Let's posit this differently, to be more like the systems usually 
> discussed here.  Let's say I was willing to tell you Fred's favorite 
> color, but ONLY on the condition that you not disclose it to 
> anyone else, 
> and on the condition that you delete that data if I ask you 
> to, with cash 
> penalties in case you violate that.  You willingly agree because, for 
> whatever reason, you want to know Fred's favorite color.
> 
> No natural law prevents you from violating that contract.

Liberty, freedom of speech, is innate, and consequently inalienable. It
cannot be exchanged or surrendered in a contract. Not because there's no
enthusiasm to do so, or insufficient consensus that it's a good idea, but
because it's not actually possible. Contracts that purport to be able to do
so are invalid as a consequence - even if they may persuade the gullible
otherwise.

Contracts concern the exchange of property, that which is alienable, e.g.
baskets, gold, apples, etc.

Labour and speech are not alienable, but liberties. People may work, they
may act, they may speak - if they want to. They may be persuaded to upon
certain conditions, e.g. if someone else works, acts, speaks, or offers
something in exchange.

You CAN make non-disclosure a CONDITION of an exchange, e.g. "I'll let you
keep this dollar if you don't mention the surprise party to anyone before it
happens on Saturday". There is no surrender of liberty, and there's nothing
wrong in disclosing the forthcoming party. It's purely a matter of
negotiating the value of non-disclosure, just as one might negotiate the
value of working for 7 hours. One cannot be forced to work. One cannot be
forced to remain silent.

Natural law is simply an understanding of our natural powers and the limits
of our powers over nature and each other (especially on the basis of
equality). It is not a police force.

We can kill each other, and defend against being killed. We can steal from
each other, and defend against theft. We can lie to each other, and defend
our ability to discern the truth. We can enslave and gag each other, and
defend our liberty. But, we cannot surrender our power to do these things
(even in a contract), nor, therefore can we surrender our rights to life,
privacy, truth, and liberty (which are these innate powers in equilibrium
with our fellows).

A contract is an agreement that can concern only what we have the power to
do, to surrender or exchange that which is alienable (often conditionally).

And, contracts are not microlegislatures, able to mete out punishments or
penalties at either party's pleasure. A party can deposit a security in
forfeit, but then this is getting into the finer points of contracts not
relevant to the issue at hand.

Contract cannot alienate the individual from their freedom of speech, their
liberty to disclose whatever they want (according to their discretion). Nor
can software. Nor can the legislature (though it can claim otherwise).

Instead of trying to suppress the ability for merchants to collect and
exploit the information they collect from trading with people, one should
recognise this is perfectly natural, and if anything to be encouraged. It's
up to them whether they offend their customers with their indiscretions -
they will lose customers (eventually).

The problem is that no-one is providing similar facilities for the plebs, as
opposed to wealthy merchants/corporations. And that's where VRM comes in.

Yes, for individuals worried about revealing 'personal data', the solution
that is viable is to facilitate the ability to trade incognito, under
aliases. Not to invent some impossible technology that constrains the
ability for recipients to communicate (and the enacting of farcical law in a
futile attempt to make the impossible possible).

 

 
> I submit this may be the actual bone of contention - is this 
> list limited 
> to discussing solutions that are only software in nature, or 
> are solutions 
> that are a mix of software, law (contract or otherwise), 
> business, etc. 
> Seems like there are few which are strictly about software.  
> It's a straw 
> man to evaluate these hybrid solutions on the basis of 
> whether only the 
> software component will work alone.

If the software can't work without the aid of Canute, it can't work.


> > VRM should attempt to make it easier for people to 
> communicate, to trade, to
> > collect and share data as a consequence of their trades, 
> not to make it harder.
> 
> Could you be more specific about the kinds of VRM projects 
> you see, or think should exist, that are purely about the above?

I refer you to the posts I made to this list in 2007 and onwards... :-}
 

> One example I remember giving Doc when we first discussed VRM 
> was a mail 
> client plug-in that parsed receipts from the major retailers 
> (Amazon, etc) 
> and built a client-side database of everything you buy, as an 
> inventory 
> tracker, insurance database, and even warranty clearing 
> house; sort of a 
> client-side equivalent of Tripit.  Then from there you might be able 
> to reasonably build an intentcasting system that first went to the 
> retailers you have shopped from in the past.  Hell, maybe 
> Tripit is a VRM company.

Sounds fine. No attempt to do the impossible there.

 
> Are you working on anything along these lines or others?  Because an 
> implementation in hand is worth a thousand on the list.

I produced the Contingency Market, which is probably a lousy name, but there
you go. It's a back-end intended to support any kind of crowd-funding or
similar scheme, i.e. where thousands or millions of independent "I'd pay
dollar if you did this/made this/released this/etc" microcontracts could be
collected into extremely attractive deals for those able to 'supply the
goods' in exchange. Similarly, one can do it from the other side "I'll do
this/make this/release this, if I get a total fund of X in exchange". And
according to any manner of conditions or contingencies.