[governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk

[JFC Morfin]

At 15:07 07/08/2013, Avri Doria wrote:
>And yes I say we, for as long as I travel on a US passport and am 
>honored to be a civil society type who occasionally serves on US 
>delegations, I am responsible for what the US government does.
>
>As for Internet governance being at risk, I don't buy it.  Yes it 
>again shows us why governments can never be more than equal partners 
>in the participatory democracy that we call the multistakeholder 
>model.  But it again reinforces the need for all of us to be 
>involved in Ig, and for us all to fight for transparency and 
>accountability without vilifying the other.  Or at least that is the 
>lesson I take from it.


Avri,

Forty years ago, the issue was transborder data flows and US 
influence through their databases. This was the time when people 
started speaking of information as a wealth and a source of power, 
after Shannon's information theory. Shannon's information remained 
the main issue while things developed through data communication 
systems sophistication, and no one has come forth yet with a 
communication theory considering the semantic spreading of meanings 
and thoughts on top of data, themselves on top of electric signaling. 
There is therefore no consideration yet of extended value over the added value.

As a result there has been a lot of confusion over our society. Our 
society is not an "Information Society". The human society always 
was. Our society is an intellition society, which is a portmanteau 
word formed from intelligence and information. Our society's step 
ahead is to have built bots that can assist us in order to 
intelligently comprehend the information we obtain from the universe, 
our environment, and others.

No one has to be ashamed of being intelligent. Using and developing a 
PRISM system to better comprehend (cum-pehendere) the different open 
access data, metadata (data on data), and syllodata (data between 
data) is a human survival right and duty. What MUST be submitted to a 
technical ethic (nethiquette) are:

- the way the information (i.e. the data I ignored) is collected.
- how this intellition (the data I did not know I had) is being used.
- the precaution undertaken by everyone (starting with governments as 
entrusted protectors) to protect national, private, and personal 
information wealth, goods, and weaknesses.

Cyberwarfare and economic intelligence are in the same league as 
cyber self-defense (which does not only concern privacy). The real 
concern with the is not so much its legitimate political attitude – 
as in every other government – but its architectonic effilience in 
the holistic best interest of its citizens. I fear that iIts strategy 
leaves too much leeway to the private industry over common good 
issues (economy, defense, cultural protection, ethics), thereby 
putting personal good at risk.

Best,
jfc


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t