dagblog - Comments for "What Do YOU Think?"

Well, if it is not naive, it

Donal — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 22:04:24 +0000

In reply to Donal, I read your post as a

Well, if it is not naive, it is rather cynical.

You might enjoy a gander at

artappraiser — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 23:52:24 +0000

In reply to In addition to the themes of

You might enjoy a gander at what Umberto Eco thinks:

http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/414871-not-such-wicked-leaks

In addition to the themes of

moat — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 20:33:00 +0000

In reply to What Do YOU Think?

In addition to the themes of secrecy and privacy, there is another connection of the 451 Family to internet social media that merits attention; the element of interactivity.

In the story, Mildred/Linda does not merely want to be passively entertained. She seeks engagement and active participation in the scene. The desire for the fourth wall is a desire for immersion. She blames the absence of that wall for the dissatisfaction with the experience.

On a number of levels, Fahrenheit 451 is a conversation with Orwell's 1984. There is agreement and debate. While agreeing that control of messages is central to the method of controlling populations, the element of interactivity replaces the division of labor necessary to have watchers watching the watchers.There is an economy of effort involved with development of a virtual world.

In the context of their marriage, Guy and Mildred do not need each other. They also do not need privacy as a couple because there is no intimacy. The love between two people is a secret place. The privacy comes not from some barrier that is set in place but from not needing to borrow something from others. John Donne expressed it well:

So let us melt, and make no noise,
No teare-floods, nor sigh-tempests move,
T'were prophanation of our joyes
To tell the layetie our love.

Mildred and Guy both want experiences they don't provide each other. By going separate ways it can't be said that either one changes the structure of power in any way. One remains inside and the other outside. I suppose one question that could be asked about the interactivity of the web is whether it is proof paid to the virtual world presented by Baudrillard or is a way to help preserve something Outside of the structure the virtual world replicates.

Ramona: Your question of what

wws — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 20:05:29 +0000

In reply to wws, How exactly do we

Ramona: Your question of what defines an "open society" is one well worth trying to define -- by loose consensus, if possible.

The first clarification we need is a defining difference between "privacy" (the preservation of which in general terms would be regarded as a positive) and "secrecy" (which, historically, more often than not, has been and is, imo, a negative).

The second thing we might consider is that if there is invariably to be error in one direction or another -- instances in which the ideal boundary we establish between privacy and secrecy is breeched -- which is the lesser offense for the common good?

The third, if tangential issue we might consider is whether or not personal embarrassment is a price worth paying if it precludes the evil that manipulative secrecy spawns.

I've been rereading LeCarre recently -- his more recent books first and then working my way back to his first efforts. My intent was escapist -- just to be temporarily enthralled and entertained by an accomplished wordsmith whose world was and is so ostensibly removed from my own. But what I have discovered, instead, is how prescient LeCarre has been, in not only providing early warnings of various kinds of global crises, but also in explicating their cost, not only in economic or political terms, but also in terms of morality versus amorality in ways that affect us all, as individuals.

One paragraph literally leapt off the page (sadly, I'm paraphrasing, having already returned the book to the library):

"The insidious quality of evil is that it is so tiring; it is relentless in its predatory agenda and thereby ultimately enervates its targets, leaving us, finally, too exhausted to effectively counter and ultimately prevail. Evil has an unfair advantage: it acknowledges no rules of engagement, it says one thing and does another. Secrecy its greatest weapon."

You may have other questions than mine in trying to come up with a workable consensus. Any questions are fair enough. What isn't fair, imo, is forcing a society, a community or any individual to make choices with limited information.

We feel the "right" to do

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:12:41 +0000

In reply to What Do YOU Think?

We feel the "right" to do just about anything we want to do in the privacy of our homes. If we feel like doing something we want to keep private we close our curtains. If we leave them opened and someone walking down the street sees what we are doing we can expect them to talk about it and not expect them to be legally sanctioned for doing so. If they enter our property to get a closer look, or to peek through the shades, then that is a different matter.
If you put heavy curtains over all your windows but at night there are brilliant shafts of light passing through any opening and someone notes that you are running five hundred dollar electric bills and the neighbors smell a sweet pungent odor, they might feel justified, and maybe obligated, to tell the police that they suspect a grow house. The police will be able to get a warrant on the grounds of evidence that you are secretly doing something illegal and suddenly you have lost that right to privacy even if you are growing orchards. The judge will have temporarily taken away your right to privacy whether you have actually forfeited it by your own actions or not.
If you have reason to believe that someone is abusing a child in their home, and notifying the authorities has done no good, I think you have the right and the obligation to break the law and sneak onto their property and peek through their windows so as to get evidence and force the authorities to do right. If they don't you should call the newspaper and try to get them ito expose the authorities.
If you have access to information that shows that your government is secretly hiding the fact that it is lying to its own people to cover up the fact that it is doing things which which are illegal and often completely unconscionable, then the honorable thing to do is reveal what you know. Bradley Manning was arrested 198 days ago and is in solitary confinement because he supposedly did what I think is an honorable thing. This spouting off on the internet is pretty easy, especially doing so under a pseudonym as I do so as to maintain a niche of privacy for my rants.

wws, How exactly do we

Ramona — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 18:29:00 +0000

In reply to Ramona:I agree with you when

wws, How exactly do we function in an "open society"? How open is open? Is anything closed to us at all? If not, how do we avoid that same openness from crossing over into our personal lives? Will we all be living in glass houses?

I guess I don't see the word "secrecy" in the same vein as you do. It can be an instrument for evil, but that doesn't mean it always is. I can't imagine a society where all secrets are exposed. I'm still trying to figure out how that would work to our benefit.

While I agree that people

Elusive Trope — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 16:58:02 +0000

In reply to Ramona:I agree with you when

While I agree that people with bad intent can use secrecy to manipulate others, it is also true that knowledge can be a weapon as well. That is why we believe in an individual right to keep their physical and mental medical records secret. I sure don't want to have to list my medical history on my job application, even though the business owner might claim he or she has the right to know just who it is they are hiring. And local and global law enforcement would become completely ineffective if criminals from insider traders to criminal networks like the one ran by Khan were able to know what specific individuals were under surveillance and targets of investigations. I suppose one can say that secrecy can be "weapon for good" against such things, for example, as those who would discriminate against those with HIV or a history of depression, or those who would rob and kill and otherwise create suffering among the innocents.

"Everything secret

we are stardust — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 16:56:04 +0000

In reply to Ramona:I agree with you when

"Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity." ---Lord Acton

Hey, wws; nice to see you!

Ramona:I agree with you when

wws — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 16:33:23 +0000

In reply to As one who shuts and locks

Ramona:

I agree with you when you say: "We all have a need for privacy, of course ...." but I emphatically disagree when you say "but we have an even greater need for secrecy. "

Secrecy, Ramona, is by its nature, a one-way street that results -- because we are, as yet, imperfectly-evolved beings -- in the manipulation of others without their informed consent. He or she who knows more and who chooses to willfully withhold that knowledge from others -- whether in government, or within community or personal relationships -- gains an unjust advantage.

Secrecy -- until we evolve further -- is, in essence, a weapon.

Donal, I read your post as a

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 16:28:47 +0000

In reply to That's not what he says. He

Donal, I read your post as a series of questions and some answers by others that you have found online. They are important and topical questions because the answers are not obvious and yet getting the right answers, which affect us all, is very important. You do not answer the questions yourself which is fine. I would not expect anyone to give an answer that covers the various circumstances which beg the questions in the first place and that is the position I believe Shirky takes. I do expect that we will all get some insights that will inform our opinions as the conversation goes on. Most of us will end up thinking it is more complicated than we first thought.

Our disagreement is just on a small facet of your presentation. The assertion you make is that you believe that Shirky is naive in his belief that the courts will get it right. I still maintain that Shirky did not say that the courts will get it right and so did not demonstrate naivety in his answer.

Shirky poses various related questions and says that they all belong in a class. He then says that he does not know the answer and we do not know the answer, we just have our various opinions, and the only time we will get a legal definition of the answer in a particular case is when the question is taken to the courts.

I repeat, I do not see any confidence expressed by Shirky that the courts will necessarily get it right. He does not address that, he merely states how things are.

I see Shirkey's description of how the questions are answered as along the line of the different philosophical stances represented by the story about the three umpires calling pitches as strikes or balls. Umpire number one says, "I call them like I see them" Number two says,"I call them what they are". Number three says, "They aint nothin' 'til I call 'em".
Shirkey is saying that when it comes down to a legal decision of "When does my right to privacy trump your need for security?" and the related questions, that umpire number three's philosophy will be the one that carries the day.

My comments are usually either too long or too short. I tried to get away with one that was too short.