Zero Powers wrote:
>
>
> I think some on the list misunderstand how feel about surveillance. I don't
> think *absolute* surveillance will be needed for the foreseeable future.
> There are some zones of privacy which should always be held inviolable. I
> don't believe the government or anyone else has a legitimate interest in
> such intimacies as the goings on under your bedsheets or while tending to
> your various, er, biological needs.
>
> You recognize that: "Keeping what you do in public a secret will be almost
> impossible." That in essence is all I have been saying. The only
> surveillance outside of this which I would not have a problem with is that
> surveillance which is necessary to keep you from doing me harm with
> impunity. For instance, if you are a powerful government official, you
> should essentially live in fish bowl. Virtually all your communications
> should be a matter of public record. Similarly, if you happen to have
> possession of a "near-anything" device which you could use to turn my
> neighborhood into gray goo, I believe there should be some means of
> determing exactly what you do with it, even if you only use it in the
> privacy of your home.
>
> There's no need to worry. If I'm in charge, your bedrooms are still safe.
I don't beleive you for a minute. Notice the qualifier. Only one room on
your private property does he want to protect. He wants to end the
concept of private property. Disregard for rights of private property is
the classic identifier of a communist or socialist. Making oneself sound
'reasonable' is the classic hallmark of the closet fascist. "Its for our
own good." "Its for our own protection." "Its for the children." He may
not be for absolute surveillance, in the way I have demonstrated would
be needed numerically. He just wants to make sure you can't fart or
sneeze in your whole life without someone else knowing about it. If that
isn't absolute tyranny, I don't know what is.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:10:37 MDT