Un ramo di pazzia – Max Stirner

O uomo, la tua testa non è a segno; tu hai un granello di follia. Tu immagini grandi cose, dipingi alla tua fantasia un intero mondo di dei fatto per te solo, un regno degli spiriti al quale tu solo sei destinato: un ideale che a sé ti chiama. La tua è un’idea fissa.

Non pensare già che io scherzi o parli in stile biblico, se considero quegli uomini, anzi la maggior parte degli uomini che vivono sotto il fascino delle cose elevate, quale altrettanti “pazzi” degni del manicomio.

Che cosa s’intende per “idea fissa”? Un’idea della quale l’uomo si è reso schiavo. Se da una tale idea fissa voi riconosceste che l’uomo è pazzo voi chiudete in un manicomio, colui che n’è schiavo. E non sono forse tali i dogmi della fede, dei quali non è lecito dubitare la maestà, per esempio, del popolo alla quale non si deve attentare (chi lo fa si rende colpevole di lesa maestà); la virtù che il censore tutela col dar l’ostracismo ad ogni parola che possa ledere in qualunque modo la moralità, ecc.? Non sono forse, tutte codeste, “idee fisse” ? Non son forse tutte stolte chiacchiere, quelle, per esempio, della massima parte dei nostri giornali; chiacchiere di pazzi, dominati dall’idea fìssa della moralità, della legalità, del cristianesimo, erranti liberi per il mondo poiché tanto vasto è il manicomio che li accoglie? Se ad alcuno di cotali pazzi si tocca il tasto dell’idea fissa, ecco che ci sarà necessario d’assicurarci contro la sua furia. Giacché questi grandi pazzi rassomigliano ai pazzi ordinari in ciò, che essi assalgono proditoriamente chi s’attenta a dissuaderli dalla loro “idea fissa”. Prima gli tolgono l’arma; poi la parola, ed in fine piombano su di lui per dilaniarlo colle loro unghie. Ogni giorno ci fornisce nuove prove della vigliaccheria e degli istinti di vendetta di tali pazzi, e il popolo sciocco plaude alle loro folli attitudini. Bisogna leggere le gazzette dei nostri giorni per acquistare l’orribile convincimento, che si è rinchiusi insieme con dei pazzi. — “Tu non devi dar del pazzo al fratello tuo, altrimenti, ecc.”. Ebbene, io non temo la vostra maledizione e dico: “i miei fratelli sono pazzi, arcipazzi”. Che un disgraziato inquilino del manicomio s’immagini d’essere il Padre Eterno, l’imperatore del Giappone, oppure lo Spirito Santo, o che un bravo borghese persuada a sé stesso ch’egli è destinato ad essere un buon cristiano, un fedele protestante, un cittadino devoto al governo, un uomo virtuoso e cosi via — si tratta pur sempre d’una “idea fissa”. Colui che non ha tentato mai né mai osato di cessar d’essere (fosse pure per un momento) un buon cristiano, un fedele protestante, un uomo virtuoso è prigioniero e schiavo della sua fede, della sua virtù. Come gli scolastici non filosofavano che entro i limiti dei dogmi della Chiesa e il papa Benedetto XIV scriveva dei grossi volumi il cui contenuto non esorbitava dai confini delle superstizioni papistiche, come molti scrittori pubblicarono innumerevoli in-folio sullo “Stato” senza mettere in dubbio l’ idea fissa dello Stato, come le colonne dei nostri giornali sono ripiene di politica, perchè coloro che li scrivono sono dominati dall’idea che l’uomo sia destinato ad essere un “animale politico”; cosi vegetano anche i sudditi nella sudditanza, i virtuosi nella moralità, i liberali nell’umanesimo, ecc. senza mai provare contro tali loro idee fisse il coltello della critica. Immutabili, al pari delle monomanie dei pazzi quelle idee, se ne stanno su fondamenta di granito, e guai a chi s’attenta a toccarle — perché son cose sacre! L’idea fissa: ecco ciò ch’è sacro. Continua a leggere

I pericoli della sorveglianza – Neil Richards

Riporto dal sito Social Science Research Network.

Potete scaricare l’intero articolo qua (PDF di 38 pagine), oppure sulla pagina originale.

The Dangers of Surveillance

Neil M. Richards

Washington University in Saint Louis – School of Law
March 25, 2013

Harvard Law Review, 2013

Abstract: 
From the Fourth Amendment to George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, our law and literature are full of warnings about state scrutiny of our lives. These warnings are commonplace, but they are rarely very specific. Other than the vague threat of an Orwellian dystopia, as a society we don’t really know why surveillance is bad, and why we should be wary of it. To the extent the answer has something to do with “privacy,” we lack an understanding of what “privacy” means in this context, and why it matters. Developments in government and corporate practices, however, have made this problem more urgent. Although we have laws that protect us against government surveillance, secret government programs cannot be challenged until they are discovered. And even when they are, courts frequently dismiss challenges to such programs for lack of standing, under the theory that mere surveillance creates no tangible harms, as the Supreme Court did recently in the case of Clapper v. Amnesty International. We need a better account of the dangers of surveillance.

This article offers such an account. Drawing on law, history, literature, and the work of scholars in the emerging interdisciplinary field of “surveillance studies,” I explain what those harms are and why they matter. At the level of theory, I explain when surveillance is particularly dangerous, and when it is not. Surveillance is harmful because it can chill the exercise of our civil liberties, especially our intellectual privacy. It is also gives the watcher power over the watched, creating the the risk of a variety of other harms, such as discrimination, coercion, and the threat of selective enforcement, where critics of the government can be prosecuted or blackmailed for wrongdoing unrelated to the purpose of the surveillance.

At a practical level, I propose a set of four principles that should guide the future development of surveillance law, allowing for a more appropriate balance between the costs and benefits of government surveillance. First, we must recognize that surveillance transcends the public-private divide. Even if we are ultimately more concerned with government surveillance, any solution must grapple with the complex relationships between government and corporate watchers. Second, we must recognize that secret surveillance is illegitimate, and prohibit the creation of any domestic surveillance programs whose existence is secret. Third, we should recognize that total surveillance is illegitimate and reject the idea that it is acceptable for the government to record all Internet activity without authorization. Fourth, we must recognize that surveillance is harmful. Surveillance menaces intellectual privacy and increases the risk of blackmail, coercion, and discrimination; accordingly, we must recognize surveillance as a harm in constitutional standing doctrine.

È possibile rimuovere tutte le proprie tracce da internet? – Joe Martin

Riporto, da PC Pro.

Vedi anche:

Can you remove all trace of yourself from the internet? Joe Martin finds out

Once it’s online, it’s online for good. That’s the lesson many people learn the hard way through social media, as personal messages go public and private photos end up in places they were never intended to be. But although these extreme cases make the headlines, we still put too much of ourselves online every day – and getting that back can be a frustrating task.

We live in an increasingly connected world, where our digital identities are replicated and spread over a thousand servers and services. For the most part, that’s no bad thing; sites such as Facebook are a great way to keep up with friends, while letting Amazon remember your address is a handy time-saver.

The price paid for these conveniences is high, though: we surrender our privacy and information to companies, which can then use this data as they see fit. Most, such as Facebook and Amazon, will typically use the information to send targeted advertising – which is annoying at worst. Less scrupulous services will sell on our details, or cynically manipulate us into staying subscribed for longer.

And those are the ones we know about. Ask yourself this: in all your years online, how many sites and services have you joined… then left behind as the next big thing came along? Do you remember what you posted on that music forum in 2004? Or which services you tried for webmail before Gmail? We’re only human, so it’s natural that we forget these services as we move on to new and better ones. The problem is, they don’t forget us. And just like a drunken Friday night photo, that data can end up in places you never intended it to go. Continua a leggere

Libero arbitrio e responsabilità morale – Sam Harris

Riporto da Some1elsenotme:

Tratto dal capitolo Moral responsability incluso in Free Will di Sam Harris (vedi post precedente).

The belief in free will has given us both the religious conception of “sin” and our commitment to retributive justice. The U.S. Supreme Court has called free will a “universal and persistent” foundation for our system of law, distinct from “a deterministic view of human conduct that is inconsistent with the underlying precepts of our criminal justice system” (United States v. Grayson, 1978). Any intellectual developments that threatened free will would seem to put the ethics of punishing people for their bad behavior in question.

The great worry, of course, is that an honest discussion of the underlying causes of human behavior appears to leave no room for moral responsibility. If we view people as neuronal weather patterns, how can we coherently speak about right and wrong or good and evil? [...]

Happily, we can. What does it mean to take responsibility for an action? [...]

Consider the following examples of human violence:

1. A four-year-old boy was playing with his father’s gun and killed a young woman. The gun had been kept loaded and unsecured in a dresser drawer. Continua a leggere

Il lato oscuro della filantropia della Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Articolo molto interessante che esamina molti risvolti controversi della fondazione creata dal miliardario ed ex direttore dell’altrettanto controversa Microsoft. Accordi con multinazionali della biotecnologica, come Monsanto, e con i colossi dell’industria farmaceutica, che vengono pubblicizzati come “umanitari”, ottengono al tempo stesso un gran controllo sul mercato e permettono enormi guadagni, spesso a discapito dell’autonomia delle popolazioni povere. Ci si potrebbe chiedere quale sia lo scopo principale, quale l’effetto collaterale e se si possa parlare di una sorta di nuovo colonialismo mascherato da filantropia. Lo stesso Gates non ha mai nascosto di credere in un mercato privo di regole, nel quale l’unico obiettivo sia la massimizzazione dei profitti. C’è da chiedersi, però, se un sistema simile sia compatibile o in contrasto con il benessere delle persone.

Da Education Week:

The Gates Foundation’s Leveraged Philanthropy: Corporate Profit versus Humanity on Three Fronts

By Anthony Cody on July 4, 2012 11:47 AM
Guest post by Chemtchr.Part One of Two
Philanthropy wonk Lucy Bernholz defines the buzzword leverage as “the idea that you can use a little money to access a lot of money.”

It’s hard to think of the Gates Foundation’s $26 billion leverage effort as “a little money”, especially since it’s been spread over the globe to gain access to vastly more resources than it contributes, including US tax dollars, the foreign exchange of emerging African nations, and United Nations funds for international development and world health.

Gates’ leveraged philanthropy model is a public-private partnership to improve the world, partly through targeted research support but principally through public advocacy and tax-free lobbying to influence government policy. The goal of these policies is often to explicitly support profitability for corporate investors, whose enterprises are seen by the Gates Foundation as advancing human good. However, maximum corporate profit and public good often clash when its projects are implemented.

For example, chemical giant Monsanto has partnered with the Gates Foundation, which works to suppress local seed exchanges and environmentally sustainable agricultural practices through its global agricultural charity work. Fraud-prone drug giant GlaxoSmithKline is a partner in the Foundation’s work to leverage its own relatively fractional contribution to vaccination efforts, so that it centrally controls enormous world funds for purchase, pricing, and delivery of vaccines for world public health. And in its US Education reform charity work, the Gates Foundation has increasingly shifted its funding to promote market domination by its British corporate education services partner, Pearson Education.

Leggi il resto…