An Introduction to Cybersecession
From Cybersecession
- use RSS or ATOM to be notified when this wiki changes
- click to read/contribute Cybersecession Criticism or FAQs
- click "edit" in the header to edit any page; visit NEW_PAGE to create new pages
Contents |
important idea alert !
BE WARNED, cybersecession is a very important concept/idea and a challenging project; you are invited to edit and improve it.
basic rationale
[DON'T READ FURTHER if the next few concepts don't sound interesting to you: "cyberspace legal issues", "privacy & anonymity", "digital reality vs. material reality"]
- PROJECT: secession of the cyberspace
- PURPOSE: ethical validation of absolute anonymity
- AUDIENCE: all freedom thinkers / militants which honestly believe anonymity is evil
- BENEFITS:
- * solves internet jurisdiction issues
- * enhances security (voting, banking, etc.)
- * enhances privacy (of any kind)
- * eliminates the need for a trade-off (compromise) between security and privacy
The concept of "privacy" is not enough. "Privacy" refers to everything, from your hiding your phone number to your hiding your private thoughts. That's why this right can be easily ignored. We should define a very strong separation line between absolutely undeniable privacy and any other kind of privacy. We have to find an ULTIMATE privacy area that NOBODY can ETHICALLY have access to.
Common privacy concepts protecting both your brain and your office from being browsed would create a horror hi-tech dystopia. Making both banking privacy and activism privacy an anonymity issue would allow public opinion and politicians to oppose and ban both as soon as one of them becomes a threat. We need a stronger concept, distinct and superior to "privacy". We need to construe the ultimate validation of our ultimate freedom, that of transcending identity.
the analogy between cyberspace and mind
Human mind/imagination has the right to be absolutely private because it can never be directly harmful to the outer/physical world. We can use the mind/body distinction for validating a "digital reality" / "material reality" distinction, by analogy:
What if we designed a ("digital reality") world that would never be able to directly interfere "material reality", so can never be regulated?
As long as we can fraud the system, the system has some ethical rights to "fraud" us. As long as we cannot affect governments, they have no ethical right to affect us in any way.
For those aspects of our lives that don't need their intervention, why don't we actually design our own world? And why don't we just tell them:
DECLARATION OF CYBERSECESSION
Do you, governments, want to defend Cyberspace against "terrorists"? OK, we agree! Please do isolate us from yourselves. We do want to be isolated from you. Please ban us from all your mission-critical servers. We do want to be unable to break or even access your banks and stuff.
For our cyberlife we don't need them anyway. Or we'll create ours. Or we'll redesign everything in a completely different way. Or it's none of your business what we're going to do.
Human beings possess a mind, which they are absolutely free to inhabit with no legal constraints. Human civilization is developing its own (collective) mind. All we want is to be free to inhabit it with no legal constraints. Since you make sure we cannot harm you, you have no ethical right to intrude our lives. So stop intruding!
