Blog: Libertarian Constitution

readme.md

Libertarian Constitution

Version: 27 October 2019

Background: After reading Cal Newport's Deep Work, Digital Minimalism, and Edward Snowden's Permanent Record, as well as left-libertarian works, I decided that right-libertarian solutions (no collective rights) were not sufficient to prevent technocracies that reduce the freedoms of individuals. So I attempted to create a libertarian constitution to ensure such violation of the sanctity of individuals is prevented.

Clauses

1. No collective shall have a right that any individual does not also possess.

   i.e. corporate positions, role privileges. e.g. ceo, database owner.

2. Only participants are privy to their private data.

   Facilitators and interceptors of data are not the participants of the data. Data is governed solely by the participants of the source data. Metadata must inherit the same privacy of its original data.

   i.e.

   Data which is governed as public by the original participants of the data, must have all its associated metadata public too.

   Exclusive data and its corresponding metadata may only be available to the participants of the data.

   The original participants of data may elect to add additional participants to the data, during or after its initial creation, this requires absolute agreement of all original "host" participants, this permission set may be delegated to an automatic policy, however at no time may data facilitators and interceptors be made privy to such data without explicitly the same representation as other participants.

   e.g.

   Bob and Jill have a private communication among themselves, facilitated through a Google application.

   At no time may Google be privy to the data or metadata of this private communication, unless granted explicit permission by the original participants to become a participant, in which Google must explicitly be listed alongside both Bob and Jill as a participant.

   At no point may Google deviate the privacy of the communication, its data, its metadata, and any subsequent data it generates from this communication.

   If Google does generate additional data from the communication, this additional data must share the same privacy of the conversation, and must be made available directly alongside the conversation's representation to Jill and Bob.

I believe clause two actually has more headway as a Right for Disclosure, as I introduced here:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-explains-how-the-photos-people-recognition-feature-has-improved-in-ios-15.2305256/page-2

Apple marketing their on-device photo intelligence as private is misleading. On device processing yes, but then because iCloud photos is not end to end encrypted, you hand it all over to Apple, the NSA, your local government's surveillance ingress, and the CCP if chinese, as per all the mass surveillance whistleblowing (ingress everything, restrict access). They are just moving the compute costs of the indexing away from these parties and onto your local devices. Privacy to Apple, that fundamental human right according to Cook, merely means "we don't let other companies read your data". To the plebeian, privacy still means "my explicit parties only", whereas to Big Tech (corporate liberalism) privacy means "your data must comply with your local regulations, which you didn't decide nor vote on, and is no longer your explicit parties only". No issue if they were honest about this, but knowingly equivocating the terms "private" and "privacy" in such a way is disingenuous.

It's why say a Right for Disclosure is so important, that every entity who can access or has a copy of your data must be listed in the data's user facing participants list alongside those who the user gave explicit access themself. None of this behind the scenes (implicit) smoke and mirrors hidden behind government regulations, terms of services, and buried preference panels, instead it is all forced to be just as explicit to the user as seeing and inviting their own participants to their piece of data.