From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Wed Oct 16 2002 - 14:00:11 MDT
samantha wrote:
> By the same logic that made transparency seem good elsewhere we
> shouldn't mind too much if "duly authorized" personal use
> technology *now* available to look right through our walls and
> observing anything they feel justified in observing. The logic
> does not stop at your door. Unfortunately. I would also point
> out that even "limited" transparency like the above utterly
> removes the ability to organize mount any serious opposition to
> the current rulers.
### Not really. A truly powerful opposition to a (quasi)democratic system
like in the US is the *open* opposition, not revoluzzers scheming in
basements.
-------
It nearly removes the ability to
> successfully opt-out. Why would you want this kind of power in
> the hands of those folks who gave you whatever list of things
> you find most odious about the powers that be today?
### "Power" is not given, it's taken. As soon as a technology exists, the
power-hungry ones will stop at nothing to control it. You don't need to
"hand" it to them - they'll take it. By hobbling the popular use of
surveillance technology you only make their task easier - they don't have to
deal with inquisitive citizenry, people who expect to know, demand to know,
and have the means to obtain knowledge. Instead they only have to subvert
the checks and balances built into the system, which has been slowly going
on for decades, and at some time when the balance of power tips toward the
rulers, there will be no going back. Transparency won't help, and yes,
*then* there will no way of organizing serious opposition. The rulers will
own all the cameras, and you will be at their mercy.
The best friend of freedom is a camera pointed at the politician,
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:37 MST