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

[edit] basic rationale

[READ FURTHER if you find the following topics interesting: cyberspace legal issues, privacy & anonymity, material vs. digital reality]

• PROJECT: secession of the cyberspace
• PURPOSE: ethical validation of absolute anonymity
• AUDIENCE: all freedom militants, including those which honestly believe anonymity is evil
• BENEFITS:

* solves internet jurisdiction issues

* enhances security (voting, banking, etc.)

* enhances privacy (of any kind)

* eliminates the dangerous need for a morally ambiguous (easy to abuse) trade-off (compromise) between privacy and law enforcement

The concept of "privacy" is obsolete. It's too weak for the type of challenges posed by the Internet. Protecting your privacy means everything, from hiding your phone number to hiding your private thoughts. Ambiguous definitions make this "right" easy to ignore. Defining a very strong separation line between UNDENIABLE privacy and weak privacy is becoming imperative. We must create an ULTIMATE privacy area that NOBODY can ETHICALLY have access to.

We can't tie together workplace privacy and brain privacy, because politicians and paranoid voters will find it easy to oppose and ban both of them as soon as either of them becomes a "terrorist threat". We don't want a world where brain scanners are legal. We want a stronger concept, distinct and superior to "privacy". Ultimately, it is our responsibility to construe a strong ethical case for our absolute freedom, that of transcending identity.

[edit] the analogy between cyberspace and mind

Human imagination affords to be absolutely private because it can never be directly harmful to the 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. Fair enough. However, as long as we cannot mess with it, it has no ethical right to mess with us.

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:

[edit] DECLARATION OF CYBERSECESSION

(updated)

Do you, governments, want to defend Cyberspace against thought criminals?

We agree. Please do isolate us. We would love to be isolated from you. Please ban us from any of your top-secret and mission-critical systems. We want to be unable to break, or even access, your secrets, banks, and services.

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 own their 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 without your threat of physical coercion.

Since you make sure we cannot harm you, you have no ethical right to intrude our lives. So stop intruding!