

Computing faces a trade-off between sovereignty and efficiency - portfolioexec
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=12471098

======
netcan
To an extent, this is a manifestation of a general trend. "Globalisation"
continues. States are not really independent entities any more in the sense
that economies are inter tied in more granular ways. Trade is one thing, but
small businesses (like 10 people) are located across three countries with
occasional outsourcing to a fourth & clients in several too. This is not as
clear cut as it wad when companies made clear desicions to market to new
markets. Clients are incidentally incidentally acquired across different
states.

Then you have things like climate issues: carbon trading carbon capturing etc.
that require some sort of joint framework. But there is no mechanism for
governing the world. If climate change was confined to a single state
(depending on the state), it may have already been solved.

This is just another example. For regulation to be coherent, manageable & not
too restrictive it needs to be global really. We aren't operating as
independent states anymore

Maybe it's even time for a global safety net welfare system.

~~~
alexandros
a single global government is even more dangerous than a divided internet. If
a global government gets it wrong (that never happens), there are no other
governments to bail it out. It becomes a single global point of failure. Other
than that, we will have no other government to compare it against and
therefore demand change. Scary scary thought.

~~~
netcan
Government is dangerous.

But there are also things that only it can do. Having many seperate
governments whose jurisdictions you cross daily can be very inefficient.

On the basic level we can have reduced problems hiring & selling to people
across several countries. On higher levels we can actually deal with things
like climate change or internet regulations (or avoiding regulations) in a
better way.

Climate change is (i think) a strong example of this need. There is general
acceptance of a need to do something but a very weak decision making &
execution body.

------
sfg
"If democracies decide to ban certain types of speech...they must be able to
enforce their rule"

I think exactly the opposite.

~~~
netcan
Actually, I'd say that democracies should be able to but should decide not to.

I really wish people could draw a distinction between shouldn't be (or I don't
want this to be) & should be illegal.

~~~
mindslight
The comment you're replying to did make this distinction.

It's impossible for any form of government to legislate that gravity should
only pull with half of its current force. Likewise, as technology progress, it
will be equally impossible and laughable for a government to attempt to
control any online speech.

~~~
aristus
I would not be so sure. The weak spot is that the internet runs on expensive
pipes owned by governments and large companies.

The NY Atty General, under the guise of "saving the children", has effectively
killed UseNet by suing ISPs who offer it. What good is a phone call when you
can't... speak?

~~~
mindslight
Yeah, I only covered the positive scenario. The alternative is that
cryptography isn't enough to preserve the privacy of needles in the haystack,
and that all communications will be tracked or blocked. In that case,
technology only helps an ever shrinking group of people control all of
society, and we're boned.

