From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Oct 17 2002 - 19:54:00 MDT
Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> Samantha wrote:
>
>
>>Having the feds know all my movements is "not a problem"? How
>>so? This could be used to build up strong circumstantial
>>evidence of supposition of association which is all that is
>>needed to label someone as a likely terrorist or aid to
>>terrorism these days.
>
>
> ### Only if you *are* associating with known terrorists.
"Known"? "Known" to whom? I can be treated very badly without
any proof offered that some of my associates are terrorist or
not and if there is any proof it is not visible to the public
under the current secretive arrangements, generally speaking.
So it is a little facile to brush the potential problems under
the rug with a "if you don't have anything to hide then it can't
hurt you" sort of response. We all have something to hide!
Unless you agree with the government and the current laws 100%
and abide by them 100% of the time (some studies have shown this
is actually impossible), you are a possible victim of government
in a society with 100% surveillance. This must be faced quite
squarely and factored in by anyone who calls for such
"transparency".
>
> ------
>
>
>>And current highly questionable laws. Prosecutors! They would
>>have a field day with such a system.
>
>
> ### No, it's the human rights advocates and your own lawyer who would have a
> field day (provided you are innocent, of course).
>
What trial do you assume I would have? Haven't you noticed the
current post 9/11 laws that do not grant I have any right to such?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:38 MST