From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Thu Oct 17 2002 - 21:35:43 MDT
Samantha wrote:
> "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.
### There you have it - "secretive". That's what makes abuse possible in the
first place.
-------
> 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".
### Yes. We will clean the legal Augean stables.
-------
>> ### 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?
>
### With a camera you would at least have a fighting chance against your
oppressors.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:39 MST