> "Smigrodzki, Rafal" wrote:
>
> Phil Osborne wrote:
>
> > Very few people would ever be subject to the maximum
> interrogation or surveillance, of course. The mere fact of
> applying for and getting a "Clean Card" would be prima facia
> evidence against one being a likely terrorist. What it would
> accomplish, however, would be to further isolate those who
> could not pass an interrogation.
>
> >
>
> Samantha Atkins replied:
>
> And those who simply will not put up with such things on
> principle are seen as welcoming more attention from government
>
> goons heh?
>
> ### Government goons need not be involved here - if I had to
> choose in offering a (private sector) job in my business to a
> certified non-terrorist, versus an indignant who-knows-what
> without a Clean Card, it would be a simple choice indeed.
>
If it was myself I would much more trust someone who would stand
up
for their right to privacy and did not submit out of principle
rather than one who did. But to each their own.
> The same applies to choosing my neighbors, daycare personnel,
> customers. And it is my inalienable right (except in certain
> unusual situations) to choose with whom I associate.
>
Sure. But I choose differently as is my right. And I expect
not to be discriminated against in employment and housing simply
because I do not choose to have my brain scanned or my property
and affairs examined in minute detail.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:12 MDT