IP: more on Too much surveillance means too little freedom

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> From: "Bob Frankston" <rmfxixB () bobf Frankston com>
> To: <farber () cis upenn edu>

> I remember arriving at SFO (San Francisco Airport) unsure of which plane
> to take-did I want to fly to Seattle or Boston that night. It was about
> 9PM so I needed to decide soon and I had open tickets I could use for
> either one so I didn't have to decide till I walked up to the gate.
> These days that would mark me as very suspicious or worse. Imagine my
> having to explain to a security guard as I entered the airport that I
> didn't know which coast I was flying to and didn't see why it was his
> business and I did have at least half an hour to decide which coast.
>
> I'm still mulling a longer set of 9/11 comments. I do remember the "duck
> and cover" 1950's in New York. We assumed that the missile would be
> aimed at Columbus Circle (59th and Broadway). 10 Megatons you might
> survive, 100 don't bother. It was a time when we saw terrorists
> everywhere and knew that they did in deed have weapons of mass
> destruction and the means to deploy them and wouldn't limit themselves
> to symbolic targets. While many did accept Joe McCarthy's claims
> (slightly before my awareness), imagine if we had put all our energy
> into bomb shelters and protection and didn't allow for any risk taking
> and uncertainty?
>
> As an aside, I remember Khrushchev's (USSR leader in the 1950's) son
> (now a US citizen) talking on C-Span about his father's first visit to
> the US. As basically a hick from the boondocks (to loosely translate
> into American metaphors) he was surprised and shocked at the hostile
> reception he got and the clear message was that he had better prepare to
> defend himself.
>
> The reason I haven't yet written my longer comments is that there are a
> set of complex issues. The simple point is that it dangerous to try to
> avoid risk either by fearing engagement with the world outside the US
> (and thus letting problems fester) or the other extreme, by banning
> uncertainty and tolerating free speech only as long as it isn't abused.
> Alas, in email, I have to be explicit and point out that this is meant
> to be read sarcastically.
>
> Note that when I write on the Web I try very hard to avoid accidentally
> using words like "foreign" and other implicitly US-centric language. The
> concept of "free speech" is a subtle example since it is very much a US
> term embodied in the (US) Constitution. In fact, it was added only as an
> amendment. I personally consider it to be an early form of the Internet
> in the sense that it shifted the onus of "dealing with it" from the
> speaker to the listener. Innovation is almost by its nature disruptive
> and thus likely to fail if permission is required (AKA prior restraint).
> It's the danger that Larry Lessig points out as people try to make the
> Internet "safe".
>
> Bob Frankston
> <http://www.Frankston.com>http://www.Frankston.com

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/