From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Sun Dec 29 2002 - 13:49:01 MST
Harvey wrote:
> 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.
### Yes, you are correct on all points (except that Samantha is IMO not
making a clear distinction between the Big Brother vs. transparency
scenarios, and to me it looks like she is rejecting both to the same
extent). We need to point a lot of cameras at the government, even if
threatened with retribution.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:56 MST