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

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The concept of privacy is obsolete.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. Privacy protection means too many things, from hiding your phone number to hiding your private thoughts. Since ambiguous or vague definitions make this human right easy to ignore, defining a strong separation line between undeniable privacy and weak privacy is becoming imperative. We must create an ultimate privacy area that nobody can ethically interfere.

If we continue to tie together bathroom privacy and brain privacy, politicians and paranoid voters will find it easy to oppose and ban both of them as soon as any of them becomes a "terrorist threat". We don't want a world where brain scanners will be easily legalized just because "bathroom surveillance and Youtube exhibitionism have become common and legal by now, so what's the difference?". 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 physical identity.

The analogy between cyberspace and human mind

The main reason why human imagination affords to be absolutely private is because it can never be directly harmful to the physical world. This means we can use the mind/body distinction to design and ethically validate a "digital reality" / "material reality" distinction, by analogy:

We can, and must, design a "digital world" that would be incapable to directly interfere "material reality", so would never need to be regulated, for any reason.

We can't continue to lazily indulge ourselves in total promiscuity with the System and then claim that we deserve our freedom and autonomy. As long as we can mess with the System, the System has the ethical right to mess with us. This is just fair and makes our pro-privacy protests look ridiculous and immature. However, as long as we cannot mess with it, it has no ethical right to mess with us.

So, 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

(updated)

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

We agree. Please do isolate us. We would love to be isolated from you. Please make it impossible for us to access any of your top-secret and mission-critical networks from Our Cyberspace. We don't want any of your secrets, banks, or services to pollute our new Free World. Just create your own total-control "Legal Cyberspace" instead of interfering Our Cyberspace and thereby trojan-horsing your offers and their inherent restrictions into our lives forever.

This way we'll accept to access them by your rules, as it is fair. 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 and imagination, 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!