Computing faces a trade-off between sovereignty and efficiency(economist.com)
economist.com
Computing faces a trade-off between sovereignty and efficiency
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=12471098
2 comments
a single global government is even more dangerous than a divided internet. If a global government gets it wrong (that never happens), there are no other governments to bail it out. It becomes a single global point of failure. Other than that, we will have no other government to compare it against and therefore demand change. Scary scary thought.
Government is dangerous.
But there are also things that only it can do. Having many seperate governments whose jurisdictions you cross daily can be very inefficient.
On the basic level we can have reduced problems hiring & selling to people across several countries. On higher levels we can actually deal with things like climate change or internet regulations (or avoiding regulations) in a better way.
Climate change is (i think) a strong example of this need. There is general acceptance of a need to do something but a very weak decision making & execution body.
But there are also things that only it can do. Having many seperate governments whose jurisdictions you cross daily can be very inefficient.
On the basic level we can have reduced problems hiring & selling to people across several countries. On higher levels we can actually deal with things like climate change or internet regulations (or avoiding regulations) in a better way.
Climate change is (i think) a strong example of this need. There is general acceptance of a need to do something but a very weak decision making & execution body.
"If democracies decide to ban certain types of speech...they must be able to enforce their rule"
I think exactly the opposite.
I think exactly the opposite.
Actually, I'd say that democracies should be able to but should decide not to.
I really wish people could draw a distinction between shouldn't be (or I don't want this to be) & should be illegal.
I really wish people could draw a distinction between shouldn't be (or I don't want this to be) & should be illegal.
The comment you're replying to did make this distinction.
It's impossible for any form of government to legislate that gravity should only pull with half of its current force. Likewise, as technology progress, it will be equally impossible and laughable for a government to attempt to control any online speech.
It's impossible for any form of government to legislate that gravity should only pull with half of its current force. Likewise, as technology progress, it will be equally impossible and laughable for a government to attempt to control any online speech.
I would not be so sure. The weak spot is that the internet runs on expensive pipes owned by governments and large companies.
The NY Atty General, under the guise of "saving the children", has effectively killed UseNet by suing ISPs who offer it. What good is a phone call when you can't... speak?
The NY Atty General, under the guise of "saving the children", has effectively killed UseNet by suing ISPs who offer it. What good is a phone call when you can't... speak?
Yeah, I only covered the positive scenario. The alternative is that cryptography isn't enough to preserve the privacy of needles in the haystack, and that all communications will be tracked or blocked. In that case, technology only helps an ever shrinking group of people control all of society, and we're boned.
that line made me shiver a little...
Then you have things like climate issues: carbon trading carbon capturing etc. that require some sort of joint framework. But there is no mechanism for governing the world. If climate change was confined to a single state (depending on the state), it may have already been solved.
This is just another example. For regulation to be coherent, manageable & not too restrictive it needs to be global really. We aren't operating as independent states anymore
Maybe it's even time for a global safety net welfare system.