[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] Has XML run its course?
- From: David Brownell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 08:19:15 -0700
Yep, you're betting on monopoly power to enforce a
single ("monolithic") approach. To toss another log on
the flames, which is more awesome: to create a system
that self-evolves, or to create something big and static?
And for the offtopic parts:
> A modern surveillance state? How about protection
> from the sponsored criminally insane?
Apples versus Oranges. How about not privatizing
critical infrastructure (airport and airplane security) to
suppliers (airlines) that value their profits over the
safety of customers -- and cities? Same issue with
foreign policy (corporate control, profits uber alles).
> Note the
> inclusion of the qualifiers, "policy mediated
> access". The information is already there.
I'd rather see secured cockpits (as found in many
nations) than the illusion that more and better ways
to spy on non-criminals could prevent criminals
from taking over planes.
You also seem to want to trust the policy making
authorities. "Who will watch the watchers?"
> I prefer a system
> by which authorities are able to get information
> when they need it under the control of the law
"Need" has never been an issue. "Want" is what's
on the table now. There are lots of policy makers
in government that "want" to prevent legal forms
of opposition to their bad/corrupt policies. Better
surveillance makes it inevitable they'll do that, and
doesn't prevent the illegal forms of opposition.
I prefer to see a system with real accountability.
That shouldn't be getting taken off the table.