Re: SOCIAL: Military and nanotech

Rory McLean wrote:
> Religious and Hobby/Social, and from a negative point of view,
> Terrorist. I don't think these neatly fit into any of the three
> you have given. I still think it's a good starting point, though.

As I explained in another post, I see Religious as basically Guardian. 
And I see Hobby, and (to answer David Oker) Scientific Exploratory, as
Information.  Why don't you think these fit?

Social is harder--there are many ways and modes of interacting
socially.  But I'm not sure policy work is relevant to unorganized or
emergent social activities--more precisely, it may be relevant to each
activity on a case-by-case basis.  (Competitive body modification? 
No-risk orgies?  "Telepathic" technologies based on neural implants? 
Etc...) 

Keep in mind that some organizations do not fit the classification
because they are monstrous hybrids: they pick and choose ethics/precepts
for convenience.

> If there is a desire to restrict the distribution of products
> built by say a nearly universally distributed table-top
> nanofactory, then a number of things need to be considered:
> 
> == Only verified product designs should be built.

We cover this in our paper, "Safe Utilization of Advanced
Nanotechnology" 
http://CRNano.org/safe.htm

> == Only products compatible with the ethics of the organisation
>    should be built.

Many products will be dual-use, and individuals may belong to more than
one type of organization.  So I don't think this can be a hard-and-fast
rule.  The overall rule is: organizations should stick to their
imperative/precepts.  Monitoring of products could provide (usually
circumstantial) evidence that an organization was not doing so.

> == Product designs should only be used in accordance with the
>    associated agreement with the design's publisher.

Guardians may put a lot of restrictions: I'm looking at a can of Raid
that says, "It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a
manner inconsistent with its labeling."  An Information-type publisher
will have relatively minimal restrictions. 

> For example, the nanofactory will only build designs water-marked
> as verified, which will probably require several layers of
> strong, dynamic, encryption to implement.

And also physical safeguards on the nanofactory.

> There will be a need to model the ethics of organisations,
> compare these with the design aims of the product, verify the
> product requester is a member of a given organisation, etc. Of
> course, this doesn't in any way restrict the mis-application of
> products, given human ingenuity, but will hopefully keep
> dangerous industrial or military nanotech out of the domestic
> kitchen.

Physically dangerous products tend to be regulated by the reigning
physical-Guardian organization, which of course takes a
better-safe-than-sorry approach: only people who are known to be safe
should have access.  So I think a much simpler model will keep dangerous
products out of the kitchen: if it's a dangerous product, slap a
"restricted" flag on it, and you can only build it if you have an
appropriate license.

> If a product is released as freeware, then the nanofactory is not
> allowed to charge for its manufacture. Relabeling and selling
> someone else's product will probably need some sort of design
> comparison scheme, with AI or human assistance, to prevent. If a
> design is released explicitely not for military, or commercial,
> or whatever, use, then such organisations should be prevented
> from making it. A verifiable degree of responsibility might be
> needed for some products, such as not generally allowing children
> to produce powerful medicines

I strongly agree that there should be a way to make designs that a
nanofactory can't charge for.  This idea may not be popular in the US
business climate today.

Check out http://CRNano.org/everyone.htm which covers a lot of what you
say here.  For example,
"""""
...... automated design analysis systems can be an integral part of the
patent system for these designs. This would allow immediate detection of
patent infringers and of prior art, ensuring that patents are used as
far as possible but not overused. A "patent holiday" of a few months
would allow a base of prior art to be developed, ensuring that the most
obvious and useful designs could not be owned by opportunists. However,
a few months of invention will not even scratch the surface of the
possible products; most inventions would remain to be developed and
patented after the patent holiday expired.
"""""

> All the above will, I believe, need some sort of Agreement
> Modelling, 

Can you give me a reference for Agreement Modelling?

> What is proposed above would allow anyone to work on nanotech
> product designs, simulate them as much as they liked, maybe even
> test manufacture them in a controlled environment (such as a
> remote-accessed testing facility), but only distribute them
> widely in a controlled way.

I like the way you think.

> Given the power of nanotech to alter physical objects, it is
> possible that the traditional way of trying to restrict use of
> systems by restricting the hardware will not be workable, and any
> restrictions will need to be in the software, protected by
> complex, self-checking, and interlocking strong encryption.

Not sure what you mean here.  Nanotech does not generally have the power
to morph preexisting "dumb" objects.  

Chris

--
Chris Phoenix                                  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org