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]

The cybersecession project

• Supports secession of the cyberspace
• Argues for ethical validation of absolute anonymity
• Represents freedom militants while also addressing the concerns of lawmakers
• Attempts to eliminate the dangerous need for a morally ambiguous, thus easily abused, trade-off between privacy and law enforcement

* by protecting privacy (of any kind)

* by improving security (banking, voting, etc.)

* by eventually simplifying internet-wide legal issues

The concept of privacy is obsolete. It's too weak for the evolving challenges posed by the Internet. Privacy protection means too many things, from hiding your private phone number to hiding your private thoughts. Since ambiguous or vague definitions make this most basic 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 bedroom 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 and legal case for ultimate freedom, that of transcending identity.

The analogy between cyberspace and human mind

The main reason why human imagination affords full privacy is because it is never directly harmful to the physical world. 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 of directly interfering with "material reality", so would never need to be regulated, for any reason.

We can't continue to lazily indulge ourselves in partial or full promiscuity with the powers that be and then feel entitled to full autonomy and freedom. As long as we can mess with them, they have the moral right to mess with us. This is just fair and exposes our pro-privacy protests as ridiculous and immature.

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. Please make it impossible for us to access any of your mission-critical networks from Our Cyberspace. We don't want any of your secrets, banks, or services to pollute our Free World. Just create your own full-control "Legal Cyberspace" instead of interfering with 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 totally different way.

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 control our lives. So stop intruding!