That is a good question. I mention that the leader count should be minimised, I failed to mention that the leadership layer should be as flat as possible. One titular head who cannot actually make policy but is a good speaker/advocate such as we find in the position of Chancellor at a university (and we could name it as such). Then we could have the person who sets policy called Vice-Chancellor be a human rights lawyer who defers to the layers below for what policy to set with barely veto rights and is vetted very well and a trusted figure based on past and present actions, perhaps professionally retired and financially independently stable with no known skeletons. Then below we have the people who create policy and manage the daily task with overlapping responsibility and equal say so compromise of any one or few individuals can be detected and pruned out. Important votes are cast after every voting member has made written submission on how they see the issue, then voting is done in secret using some open source distributed voting system where physical one time key pads are used to authenticate the voter.
I believe that a systematic process of using back mail has been used against leaders in the past the exposure of homosexual activities was used and these encounters we know were sometimes staged by operatives from many countries. These days I firmly believe that important figures are given the opportunity to partake of forbidden fruit such as under-age sex and then this is used to control them so i agree that corner cases are often engineered and then used. The cost of leaking information or getting caught is made clear to those so threatened by having no longer needed participants publicly thrown under a bus or they die in custody or strange circumstances, this will have a chilling effect on dissent. I further believe that the initiatives by Apple and others to search through personal photo repositories (and link rear camera serial numbers to phone serial numbers) is intended to allow the powerful to locate new potential people that can be compromised, I do not believe it is trying to eliminate a handy tool for blackmailing reluctant puppets or an entertainment form of some of the ultra wealthy, that is just window dressing to normalise the loss of privacy.
We cannot be perfect but if every decision is open (unless it would reveal unnecessary private details which can be redacted) and the reasons why they are made are open to scrutiny I do believe that much corruption can be avoided. Given the open nature and strong potential for being caught out compromised and ill willed people will choose not to serve on the consultative board.
How would you ensure nobody gets compromised along the way? People do “peculiar” things when backed into a corner
That is a good question. I mention that the leader count should be minimised, I failed to mention that the leadership layer should be as flat as possible. One titular head who cannot actually make policy but is a good speaker/advocate such as we find in the position of Chancellor at a university (and we could name it as such). Then we could have the person who sets policy called Vice-Chancellor be a human rights lawyer who defers to the layers below for what policy to set with barely veto rights and is vetted very well and a trusted figure based on past and present actions, perhaps professionally retired and financially independently stable with no known skeletons. Then below we have the people who create policy and manage the daily task with overlapping responsibility and equal say so compromise of any one or few individuals can be detected and pruned out. Important votes are cast after every voting member has made written submission on how they see the issue, then voting is done in secret using some open source distributed voting system where physical one time key pads are used to authenticate the voter.
I believe that a systematic process of using back mail has been used against leaders in the past the exposure of homosexual activities was used and these encounters we know were sometimes staged by operatives from many countries. These days I firmly believe that important figures are given the opportunity to partake of forbidden fruit such as under-age sex and then this is used to control them so i agree that corner cases are often engineered and then used. The cost of leaking information or getting caught is made clear to those so threatened by having no longer needed participants publicly thrown under a bus or they die in custody or strange circumstances, this will have a chilling effect on dissent. I further believe that the initiatives by Apple and others to search through personal photo repositories (and link rear camera serial numbers to phone serial numbers) is intended to allow the powerful to locate new potential people that can be compromised, I do not believe it is trying to eliminate a handy tool for blackmailing reluctant puppets or an entertainment form of some of the ultra wealthy, that is just window dressing to normalise the loss of privacy.
We cannot be perfect but if every decision is open (unless it would reveal unnecessary private details which can be redacted) and the reasons why they are made are open to scrutiny I do believe that much corruption can be avoided. Given the open nature and strong potential for being caught out compromised and ill willed people will choose not to serve on the consultative board.