Joho the Blog[f2c] Susan Crawford - Joho the Blog

[f2c] Susan Crawford

Susan objects to the title of the conference because it acknowledges that someone can take the rightto connect away from you. We don’t need permission, she aays. “We are here to assert our freedom to connect.” We should be optimistic about the state of connection. “Things are flourishing.” The content guys, law enforcement and the telcos would like to control the future. We need to uncontrol it.

At what level of the protocol stack should the government intervene? To allow design mandates to be put in place by a sovereign is like thought control. To assert we have the right to connect without asking permission requires us overcoming our “inner demons,” e.g., our willingness to accept filters.

She suggests that we need to “route around” the regulation rather than redoing it. By “route around” she means push out devices that are impossible to regulate. [Technorati tags: ]

Previous: « || Next: »

5 Responses to “[f2c] Susan Crawford”

  1. “…push out devices that are impossible to regulate.” Push out as in generate, or push out as in banish?

  2. as in “give birth to.”

  3. “push out devices that are impossible to regulate”

    Of course, as a lawyer, she volunteered to defend, _pro bono_, all the technologists who got sued in testing this impossibility, right?

    I sympathize with the intentions. But, wow, is it annoying to see these old shibboleths put forth as novel to those inside that insular conference-bubble world.

  4. This feels ad hominem, Seth. She didn’t suggest it as novel, only as true. Nor is she morally required to defend everyone who takes her advice, especially since she wasn’t recommending breaking the law but creating devices that escape the strictures of the regulations. Also, do you know how much of her time she spends doing pro bono work or in other ways contributing to the general good? I didn’t think so. Finally, the conference is heavy with people who are in the midst of this fray — making businesses, fighting legal battles, serving on regulatory agencies, etc.

    Take out the personal attacks and I can’t see any actual content here. Not like you, Seth.

  5. Sigh … I really shouldn’t have done that comment, it’s the sort of thing which gets me in trouble, not worth it. David, I regret it offended you. That wasn’t my intention.

    It’s no ad-hominem, It was a few sentences of irked reaction, not an essay. I am not saying she is a bad person, much less than an idea is wrong because of the speaker. I don’t think the “fighting to the last drop of someone’s else blood” type of criticism necessarily falls into the category of ad-hominem. It does imply the speaker’s own perspective doesn’t bear the consequences of the advocacy, which may be what you dislike. Nonetheless, in context, I would submit to you it is a valid criticism of such classes of ideas. I’d say it is very reasonable to point out where advocacy is easy for the advice-giver, but potentially and alarmingly disastrous for the advice-taker.

    Look, I know her heart’s in the right place, I really do understand the dreams involved, I lived through many of them. But, frankly, I’ve *been there*, and that affects how I view it (I’m omitting the details because I don’t want to step into more personal/ad-hominem accusations, I’ll elaborate by email if you really care).

Web Joho only

Comments (RSS).  RSS icon