[E-Lang] ERTP-aware MintMaker

Mark S. Miller markm@caplet.com
Thu, 15 Feb 2001 01:36:10 -0800

At 08:27 PM Wednesday 2/14/01, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
>[...] I think the real key to your point is that
>reputation cannot be cross-substantiated unless the process that
>generates it is open and public.

Very well put.

>> An open and public process... is less corruptable.
>Excuse me, but when you say a thing like this there are two
>interpretations possible. [...]
>But the other possible interpretation is that you are reacting to some
>specific corruption that you know to have occurred. If you have evidence
>of such, please do disclose it, because we need to know. If you have no
>evidence of such, then your words can be read as a slur on the people
>who have done the existing processes. If so, it's the most damaging type
>of slur, because nobody can defend themselves for fear of making
>themselves look guilty. I really don't believe that you meant this, and
>I would appreciate it if you might clarify.

Your guess about what I meant is essentially correct.  I am not accusing any 
particular specific activity of having been corrupt, or any particular 
people of corruption.  I have no evidence of any particular actual case of 
corruption. But given the nature of secrecy, this lack of knowledge 
constitutes little evidence of lack of corruption, which is sorta the point. 

       The nature of human beings 
    + The protection secrecy gives to corruption 
    = Non-constructive evidence of much corruption.

It just doesn't tell us where the corruption is.

See "The Weapon of Openness" by Arthur Kantrowitz (Mr. Nosecone)