From: Ross A. Finlayson (raf@tiki-lounge.com)
Date: Wed Mar 29 2000 - 23:42:35 MST
Zero Powers wrote:
> >From: Spike Jones <spike66@ibm.net>
>
> >Regarding those cameras going up all over the place in intersections
> ...
> ...
> So really all I'm asking for is the ability to look back at them. Funny
> thing is that these guys who would deny me the right to keep an eye on my
> government like that probably think of themselves as libertarians!
>
> -Zero
I think libertarians would be against the government having untrammeled
surveillance, and that it can not be said that they would be for or against
surveillance of the government, although I think that some would be for it as a
method to keep tabs on those wielding power on behalf of the citizenry.
So, until all police and government officials are monitored, any monitoring of
the citizenry is repressive as it is a means of power control. That doesn't
mean that government proclivity towards monitoring is unrealistic, but it can
be seen as wrong.
So I think that all police officers then public officials should be monitored,
if anybody, and private citizens should not be monitored. That doesn't mean
that there should be coptv on hundreds of thousands of channels (too many
policemen) but that that data could be accessed in the interest of the public
if there was ever a need.
Some might say "oh then the backup tapes of questionable police activities
would be lost" but that is B.S. Any fool who has ever restored a backup tape
knows that regular and ordered data storage redundancy activities are simple.
The costs of recovery would be minimal and time to restore archived data brief,
certainly within five working days.
I have addressed this post of Zero because he addresssed a term that I used,
libertarian, also, I wanted to clarify some things I had written. Here's
something funny, if suddenly today we had transparency to all citizens and a
huge supercomputer correlated everyone, then marijuana, etc. use would probably
be seen as quite higher than it is deemed.
One thing about data sovereignty, that is about private citizen's rights to
limit and control access to private and valuable data that is their copyright.
Having to do with personal data, if a company uses your address to mail your
goods and bill you, then that is a situation where your personal information is
required to the extent of that exact transaction. If they sell your address or
identified purchasing history then that out of the extent of the transaction,
and your data has been purloined.
On the consumer side, which is what this line of argument is geared towards as
opposed to the commercial side, in terms of credit there are some credit
agencies, and they supposedly show all enquiries by any party into your
credit. This is obviously a flawed system for the people, as many places get
some or large access to this data and it does not appear on the credit reports.
Banks should hold inviolable and strictly confidential all account information,
e.g., the utter secrecy and trust of the Swiss banking model. How well does
your bank know you, and what information goes beyond your account?
Well, my litigious side says that it would be possible to file class action
suits against personal-privacy-purloiners, the winning game scenario there is
to be a lawyer and take one third.
So, the next you give your Taxpayer Identification Number (aka Social Security)
to somebody, ask them to whom the attached data is ever transferred. You might
have to ask their supervisor.
Ross A. Finlayson copyright Ross A. Finlayson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:45 MST