Tear down your idols.

So the Pope is infallible.

Does this make you the Inquisition?

No criticism is necessary here. Some of you need to rethink your position. This is Lawrence Lessig.

It is obvious that the Prof. is not corrupted by the CLEAR friends discount. He enjoys the service for good reason, and that good reason caused him to tell the rest of us.

We all (well, many of us) work for a living. Many of us are fortunate to work in a field in which we believe in the value of the goods or services that we provide — if not, we’d be on the road to insanity or cynicism. And, yes, we are paid for our work, generally because we have skill and experience in what we do. Necessarily corrupting? No. We work in what we believe in, and others find value in that.

To discount the opinions of those who work in a particular field merely because they are paid (oh, the horror) is to exclude from the discussion those who have the most expertise and most knowledge on the topic. I’m not talking about actual “corruption” (i.e., taking a position that one doesn’t believe in order to be paid). All I’m saying is that those who have devoted their vocation to a field, for a living, are the best ones to talk to about that field.

Worse yet, to exclude those in the industry from valid comment is to leave the playing field open only to those who have some other agenda. (See Global Warming.)

This brouhaha is a micro-example. The Prof. actually uses the service, and as such is in the best position to tell us about it — certainly more so than those who do not use the service (and, most likely, do not understand it). Yet his experience is theoretically discounted, by some according to the Principle, because of $10. Leaving us (according to the Principle) to rely only on those who do not have experience with service, and who have some other agenda (else they would be indifferent on the topic).

I’d rethink the “NC Principle”, Prof.

You walked into the bogospheric minefield of minor monetization. Indeed, I agree with you, in a sense, commentors fussing over a few buck af llnk for someone in your position is the very essence of sweating the small stuff. Nonetheless, the overall issue itself is still a very touchy matter. See my _Guardian_ column about this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/feb/15/media.comment

Regarding the civil-libertarian issues with respect to CLEAR, well, I’ll let someone else take the hit of arguing about that 🙁 .

But. Professor Lessig talked, in his anti-corruption videos and talks, about the image of trust. He said that if a Congressman accepts money from lobbyists or political action groups, it erodes the image of trust, and makes it less trustworthy. If I opened Consumer Reports and saw a good rating for the Clear Service, and a side-note from the editor that putting in a specific code will get him money, that will probably be the last Consumer Reports I will ever read. In fact, I don’t read reviews from magazines that make the majority of their advertising money from the industry they’re reviewing (like video game magazines).

The reaction in this comments section is a perfect illustration of the damaging of the trust. I have a personal belief, taking into account where Professor Lessig has been and what I’ve seen him do, but at the same time, the next time he talks about a service or product, I am not going to take it quite as seriously.

It’s not a huge deal. We’re not talking “Telecoms giving our phone information to the government” privacy issues, and we’re not talking about the Department of the Interior’s crazy sex-oil scandal. But it is still important to note.

The remarkable thing about this post is not that the Prof. did this.

The remarkable thing is that he feels somehow guilty about it, and that most of the commenters take him to task for having bought this service (accusing him of hypocrisy, etc.). Y’all need to take a step back and get some perspective — sheesh.

You walked into the bogospheric minefield of minor monetization. Indeed, I agree with you, in a sense, commentors fussing over a few buck af llnk for someone in your position is the very essence of sweating the small stuff. Nonetheless, the overall issue itself is still a very touchy matter. See my _Guardian_ column about this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/feb/15/media.comment

Regarding the civil-libertarian issues with respect to CLEAR, well, I’ll let someone else take the hit of arguing about that 🙁 .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/feb/15/media.comment

As for the civil-libertarian issues with CLEAR, well, I’ll let someone else take the hit of arguing about that 🙁 .

do i like them having biometric data of mine? not particularly.

however, it has taken me anywhere from 1-2 hours to get through the non-EU (i’m American) immigration line alone at airports here in the past. that’s after two flights and 11+ hours of travel in a jet-lagged state. in contrast, when i came back from the States earlier this summer, it took me less than 1 minute with IRIS and there was no line (would’ve taken less time, but i was looking in the wrong place, initially).

the only thing i lament is that IRIS stations can break down. the last time i flew into Heathrow (terminal 1), it was out-of-order and i had to wait in the immigration line like everyone else.