Ridiculous Idea

December 11, 2018 by kmabarrett

The idea that we should trust the security of our digital spaces to private companies that have no accountability except to themselves is ridiculous.

— Christopher Wylie
(Whistle-blower programmer / analyst at Cambridge Analytica)
Quoted by: Billy Perrigo
From the interview / article: “TheBrief TIME with… Whistle-blower Christopher Wylie on life after taking down Cambridge Analytica“
Appearing in: Time Magazine; dtd: 1 October 2018

.
On This Day In:
2021	Small Moments, Lived Well
	Shaking My Confidence
2020	Two Happy
	Every Time I Look Around
	Boxing (Day: 3) – Double-End Target Setup
2019	Stand Up, Hook Up, Shuffle To The Door…
2018	Ridiculous Idea
2017	Waddle On!
	A Severe Challenge — When The President Is A Liar
2016	The Best Of Circumstances
2015	Reverberating Silence
2014	Wrong Again?
2013	Improper Faith
2012	One More Rung
2011	Sunday Morning Earlies (Hugging trees and smiling…)
	Hurry
	Updates On Life
2010	It’s Gettin’ Deep In Here

Posted in Politics, Quotes | Tagged Billy Perrigo, Cambridge Analytica, Christopher Wylie, Digital Spaces, Politics, Quotes, Security, TheBrief TIME with..., Time Magazine, Whistle-Blower, Whistle-blower Christopher Wylie on life after taking down Cambridge Analytica | 5 Comments

5 Responses

on December 11, 2018 at 6:55 pm | Reply Cubby

Adam Smith would disagree. But I hate invisible hands, so I would agree with your quote.
- on December 11, 2018 at 9:37 pm | Reply kmabarrett
  
  LOL. I think you should read more about Smith (“Wealth of Nations” aka “WoN”). I’m under the impression he didn’t say what most of us have been led to believe he said. Apparently the “current” understanding was created during the last century and was not the original intent / meaning of Smith.
  
  Try these two articles (to start):
  https://www.weeklystandard.com/stephen-miller/what-did-adam-smith-really-believe
  and
  https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/03/11/adam-smiths-invisible-hand-really-isnt-what-you-think-it-is/#79ab42945c5b
  
  Now, both the Weekly Standard and Forbes are “conservative” publications, so you need to remember that, too. Also, I’m not a trained economist, so I could also be misreading / misinterpreting the articles.
  
  I own a copy of WoN, but have never made the time to read it. I’d heard it was dreadfully boring when I was in college (um, some few years ago), so I’ve just never made the time. These two opinion pieces have made me reconsider, but it (the book) is still pretty far down my reading list. (LOL) Alas, so many books, so short a life-span…
  - on December 11, 2018 at 10:52 pm | Reply Cubby
    
    My cat senses are tingling… it feels like someone is trying to educate me. Unfortunately, I clicked on those links before I could ask you for the abridged versions. You are so good at summarizing and explaining things, so next time, abridged versions please!
    - on December 12, 2018 at 12:49 pm | Reply kmabarrett
      
      LOL! Does that mean your wiskers are tingling or your ears?
      
      Common view: Popular view – All people act in their own best interests and the sum / accumulation of all best interests leads to the maximum possible “unguided” benefit for society – as if by an “invisible hand”.
      
      Articles view (they believe Smith to be saying): Despite their best intentions for “doing good”, people / governments frequently impose laws / regulations which do not result in the maximum possible good for society. This seems to be kind of a corollary to the law of unintended consequences. Additionally, some “good” people do bad because it is in their own best interest short term and they don’t consider the impact on society (because it is good for them personally). Further, some few powerful people do good for society as a whole even though the action is not in their own (personal) best interest, because they see the long term good as more important than their own short term benefit. Finally, business leaders should generally not be in charge of government and governors should be disinterested parties who can take a long term view.
      
      In essence, Smith said: the presumption of an invisible hand is a mistake and we cannot / should not assume the greatest good comes naturally from everyone acting in their own individual best interest. IMHO – it is this statement of the invisible hand lifted out of context which has been the basis of the Republican Party’s foundational beliefs in government deregulation and reducing taxes which has led to many of our nations current problems (tax, debt, agricultural and ecological).
      
      I found it interesting that “conservative” publications would be writing about this. But, then, I could be simply mis-reading / misunderstanding the articles – which is why I was passing along the originals… 🙂
      - on December 12, 2018 at 1:41 pm | Reply Cubby
        
        You should be writing those articles instead. You are so much easier to understand. Granted, you are “dumbing it down” for me as much as possible. 😉
        
        It is interesting to learn how deeply rooted Adam Smith’s invisible hand theory is in market economies. Now I’ll never look at it the same way again. Thank you very much for enlightening me (disclaimer noted). 🙂