From: Ross A. Finlayson (raf@tiki-lounge.com)
Date: Thu Oct 07 1999 - 12:33:19 MDT
Most certainly.
When it comes to Sunshine (campaign finance) laws, that is the first place to
start, and making that data readily accessible in ASCII and XML formats. At
least, that way one can see who is running the country.
The citizen's right to privacy outweighs any governmental right to hidden
internal machinations. In fact, beyond the most critical of National Security,
which is recently readily provided to China, no part of government should be
closed to any citizen. Not only should all public proceedings be public, as
most of it is, more or less, but they should be accessible.
Now, the government happens to have a large body of data about its populace.
The possessive "its" is one I would rather avoid, rather I shall say the
populace entrusts a large amount of data about individual citizenry to the
government. Whether this is rightly done is an issue that duly effects each
citizen.
I feel that in the interests of individual rights of citizens that quite strong
measures should be taken to protect the sanctity of individual privacy. To not
do so would be to shame the fathers of our country. Little could they have
realized massive government databases about many aspects of a citizen's
personal life that can too easily without recourse or notification be
transferred to those who would exploit it.
About cameras everywhere, I find it a terrible idea. Admittedly, in malls and
whatnot and other privately owned areas, those areas can choose to keep visual
records to protect their liability. However, they also expose themselves to
certain liability by doing so, ie, if some unethical mall employee exploits
cameras to peep on dressers. Generally, this is less of a liability than the
prevention of petty theft.
Anyways, back to cameras everywhere, it would be terrible. One would lose the
freedom to walk around, and in general lose freedom.
Cameras might be a deterrent, as well as provide a means of evidence in the
case of, say, an armed mugging, or other crimes. However, it is not the
government's business to be clandestinely gathering information all the time
where does not exist, or even where it has been shown to exist.
There shouldn't be cameras in dorms, or schools.
The costs would outweigh the benefits. Now, this can be argued in different
ways, that is so. Consider the cost of having to put up signs like "this area
covered by speed radar" everywhere. The cameras themselves as well as data
storage would be quite expensive for the taxpayers to place everywhere on the
governement's behalf.
I have absolutely no problem with people having their own cameras and making
their own movies and even their own channels. It is the wholescale
institution of observation by government that would be heinous and a shame to
the framers of the constitution.
So, carry around your own camera if you wish, and let that be the deterrent,
suggested along with a loud siren and pepper spray for those that feel it
necessary. This is in the context of crime deterrence. Personally, I see no
need for these things.
Have a nice day,
Ross F.
Cynthia wrote:
> Jeff Davis wrote:
>
> > A can of worms to be sure, but I think it has promise, IF YOU CAN CONTROL
> > THE SIGNAL.
> >
> > Big if.
> >
> > Any suggestions as to how to get a leash and choke chain on Big Brother?
> > he he he.
>
> Use the camera's to spy on big brother.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:26 MST