From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Dec 30 2002 - 02:41:29 MST
Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> 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
>
When government has a monopoly on force exactly how do you think
that we will be able to get sufficient cameras trained on
government? Since they are our "public servants" wouldn't you
think that most of their acts would be subject to public or at
least public representative scrutiny?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:57 MST