From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sat Dec 28 2002 - 23:20:28 MST
Rafal Smigrodzki wrote,
> Samantha wrote:
> >
> >> Add in full transparency and literally all of us must walk on
> >> eggs lest they come and haul us away perfectly legally any time
> >> they please if they find us somewhat annoying or worrisome.
> >
> ### It's quite annoying to keep hearing the same untruth over and over
> again: The enforcers cannot legally haul you away if you can
> prove that they
> failed to prosecute to roughly the same degree all other persons guilty of
> the same offense. Selective enforcement is not legal, and
> transparency will
> give you the information you need to prevail in court against those who
> would try to harass you.
Obviously, you are talking about a hypothetical full transparency where the
government can be held accountable. I think Samantha was talking about the
Big Brother kind of surveillance where you are put away with secret evidence
that you are not allowed to see and is not presented to the courts. This is
already happening with current enemy combatants. Obviously, the government
is not implementing the kind of transparency that you are espousing.
Although I am not personally convinced, it might be possible that your kind
of transparency could be a solution to government's Big Brother tactics.
The only caveat is that the government that wants to play Big Brother can't
be the total owner and controller of all surveillance. Unfortunately, our
current government is restricting freedom of information acts, cutting back
on public domain information, and making it illegal to monitor or watch the
government in many cases. The want full surveillance for them and none for
us.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <http://HarveyNewstrom.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:56 MST