> "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
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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:12 MDT