Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
Laws and security aren't static. They are invented, developed, and refined. Most of them come about when the majority of society agrees that it is not only for the good of all to develop the security, but it is for the good of all to accept and adhere to it. That's why there are locks on doors and trespassing laws, which act together in a hybrid system to provide protection and establish punishment for violation.
Today's realities are pushing us towards biometric security, as identity theft becomes more common and more serious... eventually, the public will almost certainly find itself demanding the use of biometric security, to protect lives and property that cannot be kept secure in any other way.
There will always be those who oppose such increases in security (especially scofflaws). But as the methods are put in use and prove their worth in the preservation of lives and property, even most of those who opposed the security will grudgingly accept it in time. Eventually, no one will even remember what life was like before that.
Don't believe it? Open a history book... there are many examples of that happening in most every society. And it is a LOT more likely than a future in which no one works for a living, everything is free and there is plenty for all. Anyone who denies it is essentially denying real, basic, demonstrated human nature, which is the cornerstone of modern society.
The internet may provide for a number of changes to society, especially in terms of communications. But it has not changed basic human nature, nor will it in the foreseeable future. We are no more around the corner from Utopia than we are from growing organs in our elbows that will allow us to take our astral bodies to the nineteenth dimension.
|
This isn't about Utopia, but it is about human nature as you point out. Guess what? One of our basic human, and even animal instincts, is to share. To share with or without thought of monetary recompense (money is an invention after all). Some share to gain something in return, others because they want to pass on what they have and see it live on, but we all share from a very young age, and this behaviour is encouraged to keep us civilized. If you take sharing out of society, then every single episode of Sesame Street would make no sense.
The internet is an extension of that sharing, and as already been noted, the internet treats any attempts to stem the flow of information as a disease and quickly routes around the attempt. History, although pointing us toward general 'real world' trends has few to no examples that would point toward what the internet and digital are doing to society now - it truly is unprecedented.
Further, it's disingenuous to suggest that attempts to merge societal and copyright concerns with experimentations in a more fluid economic model are somehow pointing toward a world without money, or even a desire to live in that world (I'd argue that we're heading toward a world where capitalism fails, but that's another discussion). What I find most disturbing is the allusion toward extra-security being 'acceptable' and that those who oppose draconian and IMHO unworkable security models are somehow 'scofflaws'. Again, none of these allusions or analogies work, because the comparison of 'real' to 'virtual' stands upon shaky ground to begin with.
Utopia can't exist. But working toward a more equitable system and in tandem with others is not ignoble or even impracticable. Genies don't go back in bottles. People won't stop sharing. And the economics of the digital bare little resemblance to those of the analog age.