Sociocybernetics and the Civics Law of Cyberspace on the Internet

#1

On May 3rd in this thread, @DrCooper in Towards the Vision of The Decentralized Web! observed that:

“the problem is not how to decentralize the web but how to regulate cyberspace to prevent concentrations and abuses of power that come from operating in a semiphysical, semi-computational space.”

I note that the design of technology to produce “a theoretical framework as well as information technology tools for responding to the basic challenges individuals, couples, families, groups, companies, organizations, countries, and international affairs are facing today” is said to be a sociocybernetic one. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocybernetics) The first order of sociocybernetics is the study of the observed. By contrast, the second order is the study of the observer. Some suggest a third order exists which occurs whenever the first two orders are processed to produce data which impact either of the first two. Isn’t Facebook et al. relying on sociocybernetics of the third order by processing our data points through AI in order to influence us? Compare Facebook to the Allende Government’s Project Cybersyn. (https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/world/americas/28cybersyn.html) Notice that the founders of the U.S. Constitution could not have conceived of the existence of quantum cyberspace; Benjamin Franklin had just discovered “electricity”, a Latin word for “amber” used as early as the 13th century.

A society driven by profit is incompatible with a society that is designed for the public good. This is because capitalism is a sum zero game; one’s loss is another’s gain, and every transfer of property interest has the potential to violate legal or moral values. This is also true because we all share the same planet, and therefore we all share the same limited resources. Further, each of us humans, unlike technology and artificial entities, only have a limited time on this planet. Note that if a lawyer resolves the legal problem of his client, then the lawyer will be out of work unless that client has deep pockets and a re-occurring need for legal assistance. This is why lawyers inflate their hourly rates for representing individuals versus representing insurance companies. Likewise, if Facebook et al. commits to not abusing our attention, then Facebook et al.'s profit margins will drop. In fact, the Trump administration proves that it is possible to have a president motivated by personal greed instead of the good of the country or respect for the country’s global leadership role which is necessary to resolve the world’s most pressing exponentially growing problems.

Let us consider merging sociocybernetics with block chain technology by defining the quantum laws of all data points trafficking the internet. Notice the contrast which quantum laws have with the tangible and real symbolic laws of all nation States. The jurisdiction of all laws in all nation States are limited by their physical boundaries. The U.S. Constitution does not apply in Mexico. Likewise, the jurisdiction (the lawful existence) of global quantum laws are borne of and thus relegated to exist only on the internet. Quantum laws have no jurisdiction in the analog world. Here’s a thought experiment to highlight the problem of the (currently non-existent) law in cyberspace versus the laws of all nation States. A human builds a physical device. Upon being powered up, the physical device breaks into a physical bank and steals paper dollars. If the device delivers the paper dollars to the human who built the device, then the device, by the law of the country in which the bank was robbed, is viewed as a tool of the human to commit the crime of theft by the mere fact that the human is now in possession of the paper dollars. If the device does not deliver the paper dollars to the human who built it, but rather destroys or gives away said paper money, then the human may have still committed a crime, but the nature of the crime may be different (mischief, trespass, etc); a physical court in the appropriate jurisdiction would need to asses the human’s motive in order to determine the appropriate law enforcement and judicial response. (E.g., see https://www.iflscience.com/technology/robot-law-what-happens-if-intelligent-machines-commit-crimes)

Next we hypothesize that instead of a physical device, the human creates a deep learning artificial intelligence which exists only as software in quantum cyberspace (the internet). Upon being released unto the internet, the artificial intelligence independently learns how to hack into a bank and transfers only digital information (which represents the bank’s money and therefore its loss of said digital property) to an internet cloud which the artificial intelligence set-up on its own. Now we hypothesize that the human builds a physical device (a robot) designed to write software, and that the robot designs the software to hack into a bank. Who has committed the crime of bank robbery? Does it matter if the robot is a physical device versus just software that writes its own software? How does the law keep track of motives created by autonomous entities that create other autonomous entities? While we humans occupy more and more cyberspace (known as “data-points”) as technology continues to develop, more and more fully autonomous cyberspace data-points in the form of physical devices (i.e., driver-less cars and robots equipped with AI, Apple watch, etc.), ubiquitously occupy our real-world in ever more subtle ways. More and more technology seamlessly latches onto persons and their personal and professional real world spaces.

THIS IS WHY WE NEED TO IDENTIFY ALL CYBERSPACE BOUNDARIES AND DEFINE THE LAWS WITHIN AN ECOSPHERE OF HUMANS ONLY MADE SECURE BY THE CONTROL OF ONE’S OWN STATIC AND BEHAVIORAL BIOMETRICS. (http://airofusion.com/ghi)

A decentralized government which is defined not by its physical boundaries but rather its intellectual boundaries has thus been theorized. We will never have a human president. Each human who chooses to become a voluntary citizen self-obtains a block chain civilian ID (e.g., a block chain social security number). This creates a personal eco-sphere within our global union. Each civilian may self-obtain an associated block chain “union position” ID. Union positions are human representatives within our union in specified intellectual property sub-union eco-spheres. All eco-spheres within our global union must be no smaller than the “floor and ceiling” of our global constitution, but much like the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, each eco-sphere may have a higher “floor and ceiling” (general jurisdiction). Being a “governmental” product of our quantum union, all sub-union non-personal ecospheres are 100% transparent and always subject to merger or hostile takeover at any time and in real time; our only scheduled bi-yearly votes are our union’s executive software / hardware content and configurations. Unlike Facebook’s purported diligence, each of our citizens must truthfully and legally attest to his or her identity upon signing up, but because this union is decentralized there is nobody except for said citizen who has access to that personal information (unless our electronic judiciary needs to get involved). Our cyber-security ecosphere (E.g., Cyber-Cops) would focus on the biometrics, both static and behavioral, of each of our members and would be the only non-transparent ecosphere for obvious reasons. Our union would maintain the security of our members’ private states of minds (determinable by Tech Giants within high probabilities by algorithms), but all personal data points intentionally released publicly would become part of our union’s symbolic and tacit knowledge bases which powers an AI sociocybernetic mouthpiece to publicly speak those statistics of our collective minds.

Civilians may or may not join to create associated block chain business ID’s. By popular vote of our union as a whole, we decide the boundaries of business models and their by-laws, such as a cap on CEO pay and bonuses (if they are to do business in our union at all). While real world businesses and governments (which are not human) may not become vote endowed virtual citizens, we may list them as allies and facilitate business with any of them if they meet all rules we vote into existence for them to follow. Indeed, the reverse is also true, in order for our quantum union to claim to be autonomous and sovereign from interference by any nation States, none of our virtual citizens may violate the laws of any nation State. Our union will be designed to make voting mandatory but automatic (based upon default data-point settings) and configurable through a personal on-screen dashboard. We have now defined the laws and the electronic “road signs” of all traffic within our decentralized quantum union, and how our union as a whole will interface with the lawful entities of all nation States. We have thus created more than just a technical firewall around one’s own personal computer and devices; we have created a legal firewall around the user who is identified by said block chain ID on all of his or her personal devices. Like all tangible nation States, we may issue our union’s own cryptocurrency (Altcoin) by selling “union bonds” which will gain or lose value in direct proportion to the credibility of our union as a whole. Our union may then use that money to further its collective objectives.

Hex

Towards the Vision of The Decentralized Web!