Reply #89: I've been at this topic almost two days, and am getting tired; but I will do my best... [View All]

to address what you say.

I see two topics: the privatization of government, and the idea of open security.

1. Privatization

Since I have worked for some of the corporate shops that you describe, it has been implicit in my thinking that the corps are part of the problem. But, I thank you for making it explicit. My Democracy 2.0 idea was always predicated on self-bootsrapping, not on voting out the current government and voting in D2.0. Still, your point gives me pause, because there is nothing in my proposal to prevent corporate executives or corporate deep political operatives from openly running for office in D2.0. My thinking was always that 20k elected officials were simply too many to corrupt. It would cost too much. But, now I wonder. How many operatives does the FBI/DHS/etc have in country? How many corporate executives are there who could pay for enough publicity to get elected.

However, the up side of them running openly is that it gets the shadow government out into the daylight.

Bottom line: time for a re-think on how corporate-proof D2.0 is now and could ever be.

2. Open Security

I use Red Hat at work and follow the EFF and Larry Lessig, so I get Open Source. I just don't see how it could possibly apply to agents in the field. Let me give you an analogy.

There is one business school book that really has some content: "The Innovator's Dilemma", by Christensen of HBS. He says that when the technology in a field is not mature, that is when differential advantage is most profitable. It is also when the technology is less modular, more idiosyncratic. When the technology level increases, so that its easy to get the task at hand done, then profits fall and commoditization sets in. Commoditization drives modularity.

My thinking about spying is that it is always "immature" technology. To do face-to-face spying or assassinating, you need the best people. You can't do it with mass produced people, i.e. bureaucrats. Spying is like weaponry, where people will pay a fortune for a 1% advantage, because that 1% is the difference between life and death.

So, my contention is that, while you can bureaucratize and open source the machinery of spying - that is, record keeping, electronic means of snooping, etc - you cannot open source the agent in the field. And, those people will have to be watched forever. They are too dangerous.

-----

Well that's it for me. I said that it would take DU a while to digest my essay on deep politics. Well, its going to take me a while to digest all the feedback on the essay that I got from DU. I do appreciate your contribution; and I will look for your posts elsewhere.

Isn't it great to have DU back from the tong war over the candidates?

arendt